Delete a specific row from a MySQL table by its primary key. Requires confirmation because the action is irreversible.
Delete a row from a table, identified by primary_key. Irreversible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes | ||
| db_name | Yes | ||
| password | Yes | ||
| table_name | Yes | ||
| db_username | Yes | ||
| primary_key | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: 'Irreversible.' It also clarifies the selection criterion (primary_key). However, it does not disclose whether the tool requires elevated permissions, what happens if the primary key is not found, or any confirmation requirement beyond the schema's const constraint.
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 two short sentences with zero filler. The action is front-loaded, and the irreversible warning is valuable. Every word earns its place.
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 6 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It clarifies the primary_key semantics and the irreversible hazard, but the agent is left guessing about confirm's role, connection details required, and return behavior.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains primary_key ('identified by primary_key'), but the other five parameters (db_name, table_name, db_username, password, confirm) are left undefined. The description adds some meaning but not nearly enough for 6 undocumented parameters.
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 ('Delete'), a resource ('a row from a table'), and an identification method ('by primary_key'). This distinguishes it from siblings like truncate_table, drop_table, and insert_row.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ecp_mysql_truncate_table or ecp_mysql_drop_table. It does warn that the operation is irreversible, which hints at caution, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.