Skip to main content
Glama

Update Cloud row

projects_cloud_database_row_update
DestructiveIdempotent

Update one Cloud Postgres row. identity is the primary key, for example { "id": "..." }.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "table": "<table>",
      "values": "<values>",
      "identity": "<identity>"
    },
    "name": "projects_cloud_database_row_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tableYesTable name.
schemaNoPostgres schema. Defaults to public.
valuesYesColumns to change.
identityYesPrimary key of the row to update.
project_idYesUUID of a Bunstation project owned by the authenticated user.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rowYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured metadata. The description adds that only one row is updated and that identity is the primary key, but it does not elaborate on mutation behavior, permissions, or side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short, front-loaded sentences with no unnecessary wording. It immediately states the operation and the key constraint for locating the row.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the rich schema, annotations, and output schema, the description is nearly complete enough to call the tool correctly. The main gap is the absence of usage guidance, though that is separately scored.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces that identity is the primary key and provides a small example, but adds little beyond the existing schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: update one Cloud Postgres row. It clearly distinguishes this operation from sibling tools such as row insert, rows delete, and database query.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as insert, delete, or query. It implies an update operation but does not state prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources