ws_db_getFetch a database's name, type, and connection details using its hosting ID and database ID.
Get one database by id, including its name, type and connection details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | No | Account id, or the literal "self" for the authenticated account. Defaults to "self". | self |
| hostingId | Yes | Hosting id or uuid the database belongs to. | |
| databaseId | Yes | Database id, as returned by ws_db_list. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that it returns connection details, which could be sensitive, but no warning or additional behavioral context is provided. This is acceptable given the strong annotations but not exceptional.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It clearly states the action, resource, and returned fields without redundancy.
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 get-by-id tool with strong annotations and fully documented parameters, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and what it returns. It does not mention error behavior or prerequisites, but these are not critical for this straightforward operation.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (userId, hostingId, databaseId). The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Get), a specific resource (one database by id), and what it returns (name, type, connection details). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ws_db_list (list all) and ws_db_stats (statistics).
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 implies use when you have a databaseId and need details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over ws_db_list or other database tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so guidance is 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.