Identifies replica servers connected to a MySQL instance by executing SHOW REPLICAS or SHOW SLAVE HOSTS, clarifying replication topology for diagnostics.
Replicas connected to this server: SHOW REPLICAS (8.0.22+) or SHOW SLAVE HOSTS (older).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a behavioral nuance about version compatibility (8.0.22+ vs older), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe the output format, though these are somewhat implied. For a simple query tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the key purpose and includes an implementation note. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff.
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?
Given that an output schema exists (per context), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the essential purpose and version handling. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites, but for a simple list query, these are likely low-risk. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but since there are none, the baseline of 4 applies. No compensation needed.
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 what the tool does: it shows replicas connected to this server, and even mentions the underlying SQL commands. It distinguishes from siblings like mysql_replica_status (which likely reports replication status rather than topology), though not explicitly. It is specific about the resource and action.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mysql_replica_status. The description only states the function, not the context or conditions that would make this the preferred choice. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.