Skip to main content
Glama

create_database

Provisions a managed Postgres or Redis database for your app, returning immediately while it builds. Poll list_databases until ready, then connect an app through a [db.] binding.

Instructions

Provision a managed database (kind=database workload).

    Provisioning is asynchronous: the call returns immediately with the
    database row in ``building`` while the daemon pulls the image off-tick
    and launches the server; poll ``list_databases`` (or ``get_service``)
    until ``db_ready`` is true. Lifecycle (stop / restart / delete) goes
    through the existing service tools.

    The daemon mints the password server-side and stores it write-only — it
    is NEVER returned by this tool (key names only). An app connects to this
    database by declaring a ``[db.<name>]`` binding (``provider="managed"``,
    ``database`` = this database's name — the ``database`` field is
    required, there is no implicit default); at each launch it receives
    ``NERDIT_DB_<NAME>_URL``, and the ``default`` binding also sets
    ``DATABASE_URL`` (Postgres) or ``REDIS_URL`` (Redis) with the composed
    DSN so an unmodified client library connects with no code change.
    

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoService name for the new database (lowercase DNS label, ≤ 63 chars). Omit to use the backend's own name prefix. An existing name is a conflict, not a redeploy.
backendNoData backend to provision: ``postgres`` or ``redis``. Omit to use the daemon's ``[databases].default_backend`` (``postgres`` out of the box); an unknown value is refused, never silently defaulted.
idempotency_keyNoCaller-chosen key: a retry with the same key replays the first result instead of acting twice. Omit and a fresh key is minted per call, so each call acts.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses asynchronous return with state 'building', daemon-side image pull and launch, polling requirements, server-side write-only password handling, and that passwords are never returned. It also explains how applications bind to the database and which environment variables are injected.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded, and the following paragraphs are organized around async behavior, lifecycle routing, credentials, and application binding. Despite its length, each section provides operationally relevant context without filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given zero annotations, no output schema, and fully documented optional parameters, the description covers the critical unknowns: asynchronous state, polling, lifecycle boundaries, credential non-return, and binding semantics. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool and interpret the immediate result correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents name, backend, and idempotency_key fully. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: provisioning a managed database as a database workload. It clearly distinguishes creation from lifecycle operations by saying stop/restart/delete go through service tools, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like restart_service or list_databases.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains the asynchronous provisioning flow and explicitly routes polling to list_databases or get_service until db_ready is true. It also explicitly excludes lifecycle operations by directing stop/restart/delete to existing service tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.