list_databasesLists all databases for a specified HestiaCP user by executing the verified v-list-databases command and returning results in JSON or plain text.
List a user's databases. Executes verified command v-list-databases.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | Yes | ||
| format | No | json |
| 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=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only 'Executes verified command v-list-databases,' which is an implementation detail and does not disclose behavioral traits like response shape, error handling, or side effects. It fails to add meaningful context beyond 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 short (two sentences) and front-loads the main purpose. However, the second sentence ('Executes verified command v-list-databases') adds little value for the agent and could be omitted. It's not verbose, but the excess sentence prevents a higher score for conciseness.
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, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the 'format' parameter, mention any pagination or limits, or clarify whether the output is a list of database names or detailed objects (though an output schema exists). The agent is left without guidance on how to use the tool effectively or when to prefer it over related tools like get_database.
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%, so the description must compensate. It only implies the 'user' parameter via 'a user's databases' but says nothing about 'format' or its enum values (json/plain). The agent gets no explanation of output format choices or parameter usage beyond what the schema's raw structure provides, leaving significant gaps.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'List a user's databases.' This distinguishes it from other tools like get_database (which retrieves a single database) and list_web_domains (a different resource type). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling list tools, so it's not a 5.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that get_database should be used for a single database, or that format options affect output. There are no exclusions or context clues to help an agent choose this over sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.