Drop a declared table and every row it holds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the declared table to drop, with every row it holds. | |
| tenant_key | No | The key `signup` returned. Required only when this connection carries no Authorization: Bearer header -- when both are present, the header wins. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / name / descriptionAdded value: +"Name of the declared table to drop, with every row it holds."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that both the table and all its rows are destroyed, which is a meaningful trait beyond the name. However, it omits whether the operation is irreversible, what permissions are required, and what happens if the table does not exist.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the action and its destructive scope.
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?
The schema fully covers the parameters and there is no output schema, but as a destructive operation with no annotations, the description should say more about irreversibility, permissions, and usage context. It is adequate but not complete.
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 both parameters (name and tenant_key) are fully documented in the schema, including the auth fallback for tenant_key. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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 specific verb (Drop) and resource (declared table) plus the scope of destruction (every row it holds). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like host.state.delete_rows or host.state.table_create, so it falls short of a 5.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_rows or table_create, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description is purely declarative and leaves all routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.