Check GaussDB connectivity and retrieve server version, current database, user, read-only status, and connection latency. Test a specific instance or default when none is specified.
测试 GaussDB 数据源连通性，返回服务器版本、当前数据库、用户、只读状态与连接耗时。不指定 instance 时测试默认实例。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instance | No | 数据源名称（配置文件中 instance 的 name），省略时使用默认实例 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states what the tool does (connectivity test), what it returns (server version, current database, user, read-only status, connection latency), and how the default instance is selected. It does not explicitly address side effects or auth requirements, but the described behavior is clearly informational and non-mutating, which is adequate context for this simple tool.
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 two compact sentences: the first states purpose and expected output fields, and the second clarifies the optionality of the only parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of the tool name.
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 tool is simple: one optional parameter, no nested objects, no output schema. The description covers the operation, the returned fields, and the default behavior. The only minor gap is that failure/error behavior when the connection cannot be established is not mentioned, but for a lightweight connectivity test this is not a blocking omission.
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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the instance parameter, including the default-instance behavior. The tool description repeats that behavior without adding new semantic detail such as value format, examples, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 names a specific verb and resource: '测试 GaussDB 数据源连通性' (test GaussDB data source connectivity). It also lists concrete return values, and the tool is clearly distinct from the data-plane siblings (describe_table, list_tables, execute_select, list_schemas), so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.
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?
The description gives useful invocation guidance for the instance parameter ('不指定 instance 时测试默认实例'), which tells the agent when the parameter can be omitted. However, it never states when to choose this tool over siblings, such as using it before running queries, nor does it give preconditions or exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.