Creates a native database schema for a project from a template. Supports PostgreSQL, MySQL, and SQLite; returns contents without executing or saving SQL.
Create a native schema for a project; database is postgresql, mysql or sqlite. Returns contents, does not save or run SQL. Adapt to project requirements before export.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | ||
| database | No | postgresql | |
| template_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real value on top: it explicitly discloses that the tool returns contents without saving or running SQL, which resolves the apparent tension of a "create" tool being read-only. It doesn't cover permissions or failure modes, keeping it out of the 5 range.
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?
Three compact clauses with no filler; the core action leads and the behavioral constraints follow. Efficient, though the final sentence ("Adapt to project requirements before export") is slightly process-narrative rather than tool description.
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 the readOnly annotations and absence of an output schema, the description is adequate on behavior, but it omits where template_id comes from (list_templates) and what project refers to, leaving two required-ish parameters unexplained for an agent trying to invoke this correctly.
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%, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully enumerates the accepted database values (postgresql, mysql, sqlite), but leaves template_id and project completely undefined in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ("Create a native schema for a project") and names the supported database dialects, which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like validate_schema or export_sql. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it falls short of the 5 level.
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?
"Returns contents, does not save or run SQL" implies usage context and rules out persistence, distinguishing it implicitly from save_project. However, it never states when to prefer this over validate_schema or export_sql, or the parent workflow step, leaving usage to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.