get_databaseRetrieves details for a single database from a HestiaCP server by specifying the user and database name, returning the result in JSON or plain text.
Get one database. Executes verified command v-list-database.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | Yes | ||
| format | No | json | |
| database | Yes |
| 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the exact underlying command 'v-list-database', which is useful operational context, but it does not disclose output shape, pagination, or error behavior.
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 very short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The phrase 'verified command' adds slight noise, but overall the description is efficient and easy to parse.
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?
This is a simple read-only getter with an output schema and annotations covering safety and idempotence. The description is functionally sufficient for selection, though richer parameter guidance would make it fully self-contained.
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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the user, database, or format parameters. The parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema-level parameter documentation.
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 identifies the operation: 'Get one database' with a specific resource and singular scope. This distinguishes it from list_databases and other database-related tools, even without explicitly naming them.
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 singular 'one database' implies this tool is for retrieving a single database rather than listing all databases, but it never names alternatives or states when not to use it. Usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.