ws_db_users_listList database users for a hosting service by supplying its hosting ID. Identify accounts with database access on your hosting plan.
List the database users on a hosting service.
| 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. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotations, which already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. It does not mention pagination, output shape, authentication, or any side effects, so it provides no extra transparency.
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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.
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 with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, it does not describe what the returned list contains, and it offers no usage context to help an agent decide between this and sibling list tools.
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 both userId and hostingId. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full semantic load.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('database users on a hosting service'), which makes the tool's purpose clear. It is implicitly distinct from sibling tools like ws_db_list, but it does not explicitly contrast with 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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ws_db_list, ws_db_get, or ws_db_stats. The phrase 'on a hosting service' hints at the hostingId parameter but does not explain selection criteria or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.