Lists all databases on a specified Neon branch using project ID and branch ID, helping users identify available databases before querying or managing them.
List all databases on a Neon branch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | ||
| branch_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.9v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the branch scoping context, but does not disclose auth requirements, return shape, or pagination behavior.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only listing tool.
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 description identifies the operation and its branch scope, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, it leaves parameter meaning and return expectations under-described for a tool requiring project_id and branch_id.
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 must compensate, but it only implies branch_id via 'on a Neon branch.' It does not explain project_id or api_key, leaving two of the three parameters undocumented.
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: 'List all databases' scoped to 'a Neon branch.' That distinguishes it from sibling tools like neon_list_projects, neon_list_branches, and neon_execute_sql without requiring schema inspection.
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?
It does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as neon_list_branches or neon_list_projects, nor does it describe prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is only implied by the operation name and scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.