Retrieve an overview of the connected MySQL database, including its size, table count, and character set, to assess database structure before exploration or querying.
Get overview information about the connected database, including size, table count, and charset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses little beyond the returned fields. It does not confirm this is a read-only/no-side-effect call, nor mention permissions, cost, or behavior when no database is connected – all relevant for a mutation-adjacent database tool.
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 filler, listing the three concrete data points an agent gets. Nothing is redundant or buried.
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 tool with an output schema that documents return values, the description covers purpose and scope adequately. The remaining gap is the absent safety/read-only signal and connection-state behavior, which annotations would normally provide.
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 zero parameters, so the schema needs no semantic elaboration; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly signals a no-argument call by describing only what is returned.
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?
Specific verb ("Get") plus resource ("overview information about the connected database") and it names the concrete contents: size, table count, charset. That distinguishes it from the table-level siblings (list_tables, describe_table), though it never explicitly names 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?
Usage is only implied by the word "overview" – an agent can infer this is a database-level summary rather than a per-table or query tool. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to siblings such as describe_table is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.