List database adapters and locally installed drivers to verify connectivity and credentials via environment variables, enabling bounded read checks for test validation.
List database adapters and locally installed optional drivers. Credentials come from named environment variables; only bounded read checks are exposed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new fact — credentials are supplied through named environment variables rather than parameters — which matters for a zero-parameter tool. The 'bounded read checks' clause largely restates readOnlyHint, and the return shape is not described.
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?
Two sentences with no waste, and the core function (what is listable) is front-loaded ahead of the credential and safety notes. Every clause carries distinct information.
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 zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed, how credentials are sourced, and the read-only scope. The only real gap is that it does not hint at what the returned adapter/driver entries look like, which would help the agent parse results.
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 tool takes no parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The absence of inputs is consistent with the description's framing of a listing/introspection operation, so nothing further is required.
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 and resource: 'List database adapters and locally installed optional drivers.' An agent can distinguish this discovery tool from the sibling database_query without opening a schema. It stops short of naming database_query as the follow-up action, so no explicit sibling differentiation.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention of credentials via environment variables and 'bounded read checks' signals this is a pre-flight introspection tool. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as database_query.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.