list_databasesList all databases on the currently connected server, optionally including system databases to gain complete visibility into available data sources.
List databases on the currently connected server (schemas on MySQL, numbered databases on Redis)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_system | No | Include system databases such as information_schema, pg templates, or MongoDB admin and local |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds useful behavioral context by noting state dependence on the current connection and platform-specific naming conventions, which helps an agent interpret results correctly.
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 front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical qualifier that adds important nuance without clutter. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the title or annotations.
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 read-only list tool with one optional, fully documented parameter and rich safety annotations, the description is complete. It identifies the target, the connection context, and the cross-engine behavior; the return shape is implicit from the verb 'List' and the tool type.
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%, and the include_system parameter already has a thorough description in the schema. The tool description doesn't discuss the parameter, but that's acceptable because the schema carries the semantic weight; baseline 3 applies.
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 ('List') and resource ('databases on the currently connected server'), and adds important cross-engine clarification ('schemas on MySQL, numbered databases on Redis'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_connections and list_tables.
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 phrase 'currently connected server' gives clear context: this is meant to be used after establishing a connection to inspect available databases. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the target resource is distinct enough from sibling tools that an agent can select it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.