Provision a new managed PostgreSQL database for a project; the name is automatically prefixed with your account slug to prevent naming conflicts.
Create a new managed PostgreSQL database. The database name will be auto-prefixed with your account slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Database display name | |
| server_id | No | Specific database server ID (uses default if omitted) | |
| project_id | No | Project ID to associate with |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the write profile is covered. The description contributes one genuinely non-obvious behavior — the account-slug name prefix — but says nothing about provisioning time, name-collision errors, quotas, or what identity is returned.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler, and the prefixing caveat (the most surprising fact) is placed immediately after the purpose statement where it will be read.
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 3-parameter, fully documented, non-destructive create with no nested objects, the description covers purpose and the key naming behavior. Without an output schema, it still leaves what creation returns (database ID, host, credentials) unspecified, plus whether server_id/project_id default sensibly.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning beyond 'Database display name' by clarifying that the supplied name is not the final database name — it gets auto-prefixed with the account slug. It adds nothing about server_id or project_id, which the schema already handles.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new managed PostgreSQL database'), which cleanly separates it from sibling creation tools like deployado_create_app and deployado_create_project. It does not explicitly contrast with deployado_get_database or deployado_list_databases, but the resource noun is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is only implied by the verb-resource combination; there is no statement of when to create a database versus connecting to an existing one (deployado_connect_database) or how it relates to project/server association. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.