Lists managed PostgreSQL databases, with optional filtering by project or status, to help you inspect and locate database instances.
List all managed PostgreSQL databases. Optionally filter by project or status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by status (initializing, ready, failed, deleting) | |
| project_id | No | Filter by project ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds that the listing is over managed PostgreSQL databases and that filters are optional, but it does not mention pagination, return format, or ordering.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The filter sentence is useful but slightly redundant with the schema, keeping it from a perfect score.
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 list tool with complete parameter descriptions and rich annotations, the description covers the essential scope and filtering behavior. It lacks return-shape detail, but no output schema exists, so a minor gap remains.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description only restates that project and status filtering are optional, adding no syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all managed PostgreSQL databases'. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_database or create_database, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any particular sibling.
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 states that filtering by project or status is optional, which implies the main use case. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_database or project-scoped listing alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.