generate_database_schemaDraft a baseline database schema with starter collections and security notes; finalize with data to store the schema.
Draft or finalize a baseline database schema. Without finalize, returns starter collections/tables and a security-rules note picked from the scope. With finalize: true and data, stores the schema.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| finalize | No | ||
| session_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that finalize=false returns generated artifacts, finalize=true persists data, and data is a precondition for storing. However, it omits side-effect details, what 'stores' implies, potential error behavior, and whether the operation is destructive or reversible.
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?
Two tight sentences: the first establishes purpose, and the second lays out the two modes with the trigger condition. The information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
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?
The mode distinction is helpful, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description doesn't fully explain the return shape, how session_id is used, or what happens on failure. It is adequate for understanding the general call pattern but not complete enough for confident invocation in all cases.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning to finalize (draft vs. store) and data (the payload needed for finalization). It doesn't clarify session_id's role or the expected structure inside data beyond 'collections/tables and security-rules note,' so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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?
The description uses 'Draft or finalize' to name the action and identifies the resource as a baseline database schema. It also differentiates the tool from siblings by describing concrete outputs (starter collections/tables and security-rules note) rather than architecture or roadmap artifacts.
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?
It gives clear mode-based guidance: without finalize it returns a draft, while finalize: true with data stores the schema. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the draft-vs-store distinction provides enough context for when to call it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.