use_connectionSwitch to a named connection profile on any database engine instantly, without restart, to continue read-only queries across multiple databases.
Switch to a named connection profile, on any engine. Takes effect immediately, no restart needed
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile | Yes | Profile name from list_connections | |
| database | No | Optional database to use instead of the profile's own database |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: the switch takes effect immediately and requires no restart. This is meaningful operational information not present in the schema or annotations.
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 extremely compact and front-loaded: it states the action, then the scope, then the key behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant filler.
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 state-switch with one required parameter, the combination of description, schema, and annotations is complete: the source of valid profile names is given, the optional database behavior is documented, and the immediate effect is stated. No output schema exists, so return-value expectations are not a gap.
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 both parameters are already clearly documented: profile is a name from list_connections, and database is an optional override. The free-text description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 action-object pair ('Switch to a named connection profile') and adds engine-agnostic scope with 'on any engine.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like use_database, connect, and the list/current connection tools.
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 clear context for when the tool is relevant—switching an existing profile—and the 'no restart needed' note gives one practical selection criterion. However, it never explicitly mentions alternatives or says when not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.