systemCheck which environments are configured, test SQL connectivity for each environment, and remove all stored connections when needed.
Local connections: which envs are configured (status), test connectivity per env (test), remove all stored connections (logout).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| env | No | Limit test to one env (test) | |
| action | Yes | status | test | logout |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly says logout will 'remove all stored connections', which is a destructive mutation of stored state. The annotations mark the tool with readOnlyHint: true, implying no state changes. This is a direct contradiction, so behavioral transparency must be 1.
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 sentence packs the domain ('Local connections'), all three actions, and their effects without wasted words. The core resource is front-loaded, making the tool's scope immediately obvious.
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 description covers all actions and parameters adequately, but there is no output schema, and the description does not explain what status or test return. More importantly, it leaves the destructive logout contradicting the readOnlyHint annotation, which is a significant completeness gap for an agent relying on the definition.
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 input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions, but the tool description adds functional meaning beyond the bare enum values, mapping each action to its real-world effect (status → configured envs, test → connectivity, logout → removal). This enriches the schema's terse descriptions.
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 specifies distinct actions (status, test, logout) on the resource 'local connections', giving each a clear purpose. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings query and explore, which are about data access rather than connection management.
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 explains what each action does, implying when the tool would be used (e.g., check configured envs, test connectivity, clear stored connections). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving usage guidance implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.