List all databases on the connected MySQL server, optionally including system schemas like 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?
The description adds the 'currently connected' scoping constraint, which is a useful behavioral trait not present in annotations. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like default exclusion of system databases (left to the parameter schema) or error conditions. With annotations covering read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature, the description adds minimal but non-trivial context.
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?
A single, focused sentence with no wasted words. The action and scope are front-loaded, making it immediately readable and efficient.
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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It implies the return format (list of database names) and notes the connection context. It does not explicitly state what happens without a connection, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity and existing annotations.
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 parameter `include_system` is fully documented in the input schema. The tool description does not mention parameters at all, so it adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 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 clearly states the action (list), the resource (databases), and the context (currently connected MySQL server). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like list_tables or list_connections, making its purpose immediately obvious.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it is for enumerating databases only, nor does it contrast with run_query or list_tables. An agent must infer usage from the name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.