Save or update a database connection profile for reuse. Optionally activate it or set or clear its password.
Create or update a saved connection. password None keeps the stored one; "" removes it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile | Yes | ||
| activate | No | ||
| password | No | ||
| original_name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail about the password sentinel (None preserves the stored value, empty string clears it), which is not derivable from the schema. It still omits permission/auth requirements and any indication of what happens to unmentioned profile fields on update.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed immediately by the one non-obvious parameter rule. No wasted words.
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?
For a mutation tool with a nested profile object, zero schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. The password rule is a good start, but 'profile' contents, 'activate' semantics, and 'original_name' behavior are all missing, leaving the agent unable to construct a correct call from the description alone.
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% across 4 parameters, so the description must carry the load and only explains the password sentinel. The nested 'profile' object, 'activate', and 'original_name' (likely the rename key) are left entirely undocumented 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 pair (create or update) and resource (saved connection), making the upsert nature of the operation explicit. It is distinguishable from connection_delete and connection_activate, though it does not name those siblings directly.
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 on when to use this versus siblings like connection_activate, use_connection, or connection_delete, and no prerequisites or context are given. The agent must infer that this is the persistence step for a connection profile.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.