add_databaseCreate a MySQL or PostgreSQL database and its associated user on HestiaCP, specifying password, host, and charset. Solves database provisioning through the MCP server.
Create a database and database user. Executes verified command v-add-database.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| command | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the general safety profile with readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds that it executes the verified command v-add-database, but does not disclose side-effect details such as failure behavior when the database or user already exists. There is no contradiction with the 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 two short sentences with the main action front-loaded. The second sentence adds a useful implementation detail without repeating schema or annotation content, and there is no 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?
The output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, so those do not need elaboration. However, given the oneOf schema for MySQL vs PostgreSQL, the description does not mention the type distinction or provide any usage context beyond creation. It is adequate but minimal.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100%, with defaults and constraints already documented for parameters like type, charset, host, and password. The description's 'database and database user' phrasing maps loosely to database and databaseUser but adds no semantic value beyond the schema. 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?
Description states a specific action ('Create') and resource ('a database and database user'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also maps the operation to the Hestia command v-add-database. It is clear enough to distinguish from list/get database tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling add_* 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_databases, get_database, or delete_database. The description implies creation but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or a selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.