Creates a PostgreSQL user and binds it to a specified database, optionally granting superuser privileges. Use when setting up database accounts for applications or services.
PostgreSQL: Bind/create user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| database | Yes | ||
| password | Yes | ||
| username | Yes | ||
| superUser | No |
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-disclosure burden. It only says 'Bind/create user' and omits permissions required, side effects, reversibility, handling of existing users, and what the operation returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap.
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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. 'PostgreSQL: Bind/create user' is front-loaded but does not earn its place by providing actionable information.
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?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It provides no context on behavior, parameters, or relationship to sibling tools.
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?
The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. Required fields like database, name, username, password, and the optional superUser flag are left completely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the schema deficit.
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?
Description states 'PostgreSQL: Bind/create user', which identifies the resource (PostgreSQL user) and a combined action (bind/create). However, 'Bind/create' is ambiguous and does not clearly distinguish the exact operation from siblings like mysql_bind_user or postgresql_change_privileges. It is minimally viable but lacks precision.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mysql_bind_user, create_database, or postgresql_change_privileges. The description gives no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.