Update a row in a MySQL table by primary key. Supply database credentials, table name, and new values to modify the record.
Update a row in a table, identified by primary_key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| values | Yes | ||
| 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the row-identification mechanism, but does not disclose that the operation is destructive, requires a confirmation flag, or depends on credentials. The absence of any warning about modifying persistent data makes this inadequate for a mutation 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. While it is minimal to the point of under-specification, every word contributes to stating the core action and target.
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 tool with 7 required parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. An agent would not know how to construct 'values' or 'primary_key', why 'confirm' is required, or what the tool returns.
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 adds no meaning for any of the 7 parameters. It does not explain the shape of 'values' or 'primary_key', the role of 'db_username'/'password', or the 'confirm' constraint, leaving the agent with only parameter names.
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 clearly states the action ('Update a row in a table') and the selection mechanism ('identified by primary_key'), making the core purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ecp_mssql_update_row or ecp_postgres_update_row, but the tool name supplies the MySQL context and the verb 'update' contrasts with insert/delete/browse siblings.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or the required confirmation step. The description does not mention that 'confirm' must be true or indicate any circumstances where this tool should be preferred over other MySQL row operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.