Verify connectivity to a FileMaker database, such as MAIN, before running queries or scripts. Use it to confirm credentials and network access via the FileMaker Data API.
Test connection to a FileMaker database
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| database | Yes | Database identifier to test |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about auth requirements, timeouts, failure semantics, or what a 'successful' test means. It restates the name without adding behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence with no waste, front-loaded with the action. Brevity here is appropriate to a one-parameter tool, though it is under-specified rather than maximally informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (success/failure signal, error detail). It leaves the agent unable to anticipate results or failure modes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter, fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) and constrained by an enum. The description adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource: testing a connection to a FileMaker database. It is clearly distinguishable in intent from siblings like fm_query_records or fm_run_script, though it never explicitly names a sibling or scoping condition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this is a pre-flight/health-check tool rather than something to run as part of normal data flow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.