Retrieve topology, connection endpoints, and health status for a managed database cluster by cluster ID. Use it to inspect database infrastructure and diagnose connectivity or availability issues.
Get detailed information, topology, connection endpoints, and health of a managed database cluster.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location | No | Location/region code. | |
| cluster_id | Yes | ID of the database cluster. | |
| project_id | No | Project ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only (though 'Get' implies it), whether it requires specific permissions, how large the response might be, or if it affects any state. For a tool returning topology and health, more context about the response scope would be valuable.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and lists the key returned information. No wasted words.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate to understand the basic purpose, but it lacks behavioral details (e.g., response shape, error conditions) and usage guidance relative to siblings. It covers what the tool returns at a high level but not how or when to use it.
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 input schema already documents all three parameters (location, cluster_id, project_id). The description adds no parameter-level information, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. 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?
The description states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('managed database cluster') and enumerates what it returns: detailed information, topology, connection endpoints, and health. It distinguishes itself from e2e_list_databases (a list tool), but does not explicitly differentiate from other get_* siblings such as e2e_get_node or e2e_get_k8s_cluster.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like e2e_list_databases or e2e_database_action. It implies a retrieval use case via 'Get detailed information', but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.