Change remote MySQL access for a database managed in 1Panel by setting the source host, access type, and value.
MySQL: Change remote access
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| from | Yes | ||
| type | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| database | Yes |
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 burden. It says nothing about required permissions, whether the change is reversible, what happens to existing access entries, or whether it requires a restart/refresh.
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?
The description is short but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient information density; it fails to convey anything an agent needs.
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?
A mutation tool with five undocumented required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema requires substantially more explanation than this fragment provides.
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?
Five required parameters (id, database, from, type, value) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. The meaning of "from", "type", and "value" is entirely opaque.
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?
"MySQL: Change remote access" essentially restates the tool name (mysql_change_access) without specifying what is actually changed. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as mysql_update_remote_access, mysql_bind_user, or mysql_get_remote_access.
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 guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus mysql_update_remote_access or mysql_bind_user. The agent is left to guess from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.