list-databases
Retrieve all database names from a MongoDB connection to view available data collections.
Instructions
List all databases for a MongoDB connection
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Retrieve all database names from a MongoDB connection to view available data collections.
List all databases for a MongoDB connection
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal context beyond this, as it doesn't detail output format, pagination, or connection requirements. With annotations covering safety, a baseline 3 is appropriate for the limited added value.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and perfectly sized for its simple function.
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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and good annotations, the description is adequate but lacks output details (no output schema provided) and doesn't address connection context or sibling differentiation. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in completeness.
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?
There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the input (none). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, earning a high baseline score for a parameterless tool.
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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('all databases for a MongoDB connection'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-collections' or 'db-stats', which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring a connection first), compare to similar tools like 'list-collections', or specify use cases (e.g., for inventory vs. detailed stats).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/officialpraise/mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server