Creates a new MySQL database user with username and password, optionally setting host, checking existence, and selecting a connection.
Cria um novo usuário no banco de dados
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | Host do usuário | % |
| password | Yes | Senha do usuário | |
| username | Yes | Nome do usuário | |
| ifNotExists | No | Criar apenas se não existir | |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it does not say whether privileges are required, whether an existing user triggers an error or is silently skipped (relevant given ifNotExists defaults to true), or anything about reversibility. 'Cria' implies mutation but no behavioral context is added.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits permission requirements, conflict behavior, and the role of connectionName/host. The schema covers the parameters but nothing covers behavior.
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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting information beyond that baseline, so a 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Cria um novo usuário no banco de dados'), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. However, it does nothing to distinguish it from siblings such as drop_user, change_password, or list_users, so it cannot be 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?
No indication of when to use this rather than change_password, grant_privileges, or list_users, and no prerequisites mentioned. The agent gets no routing guidance beyond the bare purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.