Insert a row into a PostgreSQL table by providing database details, credentials, and field values. Enables adding data records to databases within a hosting account.
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 behavior. It does not mention that the operation requires a confirmation flag (confirm=true), does not describe side effects, error conditions, or what happens on conflicting data. The description provides zero behavioral information beyond the bare action.
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 extremely short (one sentence), which is concise but severely under-specified. It fails to convey essential information about parameters, return values, or usage context, making it more of a placeholder than a useful definition.
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 tool's complexity (6 required params, a nested 'values' object, and a confirmation flag), this description is wildly incomplete. It lacks field-level guidance, no mention of required credentials, no note on data format, and no indication of what the tool returns. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool without substantial guesswork.
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?
The schema has 6 required parameters with zero descriptions (coverage 0%). The description adds no parameter semantics – it does not explain what 'values' should contain, the format of credentials, or the purpose of the confirm flag. The tool is completely opaque to an agent trying to construct a valid call.
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 the verb (insert) and resource (a row into a table), which is clear at a high level. However, it does not mention the database type, so it fails to distinguish from sibling insert_row tools for MySQL, MSSQL, etc. The tool name carries that information but the description itself is ambiguous.
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 over alternatives such as ecp_mysql_insert_row or ecp_mssql_insert_row, nor any conditions or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer that this is for PostgreSQL solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.