list_databasesList all databases on the currently connected MySQL server. Optionally include system databases such as information_schema and performance_schema.
List databases on the currently connected MySQL server
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_system | No | Include information_schema, performance_schema, mysql and sys |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations clearly indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to reiterate safety. The description adds the modifier 'currently connected MySQL server', which clarifies that it operates on a specific connection context, giving more detail than the annotations alone. It doesn't mention output format, but that's fine for a simple list tool and is not a contradiction.
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 with no filler. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and the contextual modifier is added naturally. Every word earns its place, making it highly readable.
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 the tool's simplicity (one optional boolean parameter, no output schema, low complexity), the description is nearly complete. It mentions the connection context, which is useful. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly note that the default behavior excludes system databases, but that is implied by the include_system parameter and its default value. All essential information for correct invocation is present.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the parameter 'include_system' is fully described in the schema. The description of the tool does not add extra clarification about this parameter, but it doesn't need to because the schema is sufficient. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.
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 the action ('list') and the resource ('databases') on the currently connected MySQL server. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tables and get_table_sample by being specific to databases. This is unambiguous and sufficient.
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 description mentions 'on the currently connected MySQL server', which implies a prerequisite that a connection is active, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives. However, the sibling names like list_connections or use_database provide implicit context, and the scope of 'databases' is clear. Could be improved by noting that it is not for listing tables or connections, but the current phrasing is clean and workable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.