Check the MySQL password policy for a connection to confirm required length, complexity, and reuse rules. Audit user security settings before creating or updating accounts.
Verifica a política de senhas do sistema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| connectionName | No | Nome da conexão para usar |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that this is presumably a read-only query, what it returns (policy rules? pass/fail?), whether it requires elevated privileges, or which connection it targets.
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?
A single short sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than true tightness.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and a one-line description, the agent lacks critical context: what the check returns, whether it is scoped to a user or the whole system, and how to act on the result. More detail is needed for a tool in a security-sensitive area.
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 single connectionName parameter is already documented in the schema ('Nome da conexão para usar'). The description adds no syntax, default, or behavioral detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource (checks the system's password policy), which is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like change_password or create_user. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any alternative tool, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
There is no indication of when to use this tool, in what context (pre-audit, before creating a user, after a policy change), or what alternatives exist. The agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.