Permanently remove an entire MongoDB database after confirming its name; admin, config, and local databases are blocked to prevent accidental deletion.
Drop a whole database. confirm_name must repeat the database name. admin/config/local are refused.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| database | Yes | ||
| connection | No | ||
| confirm_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already mark this as destructive and not idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context: a confirmation parameter is required, and certain system database names are rejected. It does not describe irreversibility or permission requirements in more detail.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the critical confirmation requirement. There is no wasted text.
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 destructive tool, it covers the essential safety behavior: confirmation and refused targets. It is slightly incomplete because the optional connection parameter is undocumented, but the annotations already communicate the destructive profile.
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 carry parameter meaning. It explains confirm_name well and partially constrains database via refused values, but it does not explain the optional connection parameter.
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?
It states a specific verb and resource: "Drop a whole database." This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as drop_collection and drop_index.
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 gives important guardrails: confirm_name must repeat the database name, and admin/config/local are refused. However, it does not explain when to use this tool instead of related destructive tools such as drop_collection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.