Insert a new row into a MySQL table by providing database credentials, table name, and column values. Enables adding data to hosting account databases.
Insert a row into a table.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| values | Yes | ||
| confirm | Yes | ||
| db_name | Yes | ||
| password | Yes | ||
| table_name | Yes | ||
| db_username | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that this is a write operation that modies the database, nor does it mention any side effects, such as the need for confirmation. The required `confirm` parameter and `password` parameter suggest safeguards, but the description does not explain them. The description fails to disclose the mutating nature beyond the verb 'Insert'.
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 short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for minimal information, but it lacks substance that would be needed for a complex tool. Every word is useful, but the brevity is under-specification rather than elegance.
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 the complexity (6 required parameters, nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain the meaning of `values`, the role of `confirm` (safety confirmation), or the authentication requirements. The description fails to cover essential details that the schema and annotations do not 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. The schema only lists parameter names and types, but with 6 required parameters and nested objects, it does not explain the format of `values` (column-value mappings) or the meaning of `confirm`. The description adds no semantic value; the agent is left to infer how to structure the invocation.
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 'Insert a row into a table' states a clear verb and resource (insert into a MySQL table), which distinguishes it from tools that update, delete, or browse rows. However, it does not specify that this is for MySQL specifically, though the tool name includes 'mysql'. The purpose is clear but minimal.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to use `ecp_mysql_insert_row` instead of `ecp_mysql_update_row` or `ecp_mysql_browse_rows`. It also doesn't mention any prerequisites or constraints, such as the need for the table to exist or the authentication requirements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.