Retrieve PostgreSQL database details including version, current database, user, encoding, timezone, and top-level statistics for environment overview.
Return general information about the connected PostgreSQL database: version, current database, current user, encoding, timezone, and top-level statistics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It communicates a read-only, informational operation by saying it returns database info, which implies no destructive side effects. However, it does not explicitly state non-mutating behavior, permission requirements, or potential costs of computing 'top-level statistics,' so some behavioral uncertainty remains.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that starts with the action and immediately lists the concrete information returned. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.
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, has zero parameters, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to justify return values further. It names the database type (PostgreSQL) and specific facts returned, making it fully actionable for an agent.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing missing. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details. Baseline 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.
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 a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('general information about the connected PostgreSQL database'), and enumerates exactly what will be returned: version, current database, current user, encoding, timezone, and top-level statistics. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables or execute_query, which have different purposes.
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 clearly establishes the tool's context: retrieving database-level metadata with no arguments. Although it does not explicitly name alternative tools, the narrow scope and listed return fields make it obvious when to choose this over siblings like list_schemas or describe_table. A small explicit 'when to use' statement could improve it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.