Update a specific row in a PostgreSQL table by matching its primary key. Provides targeted modifications to database records through conversational hosting management.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that a row will be mutated, but it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether confirmation is required, what happens if the primary key is missing, or whether it can be reversed. This is a significant transparency gap 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 sentence with no fluff and gets to the action immediately. It is concise and front-loaded, though it achieves brevity by omitting substantial guidance.
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?
With 7 required parameters, nested objects, no parameter docs, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is not close to being complete. It fails to explain the values structure, primary_key shape, confirmation semantics, credentials, or any expected behavior or result. The agent would need to guess at almost every field.
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%, yet the description only says the row is identified by primary_key and does not explain values, db_name, table_name, credentials, or the confirm parameter. For 7 required parameters, including nested objects, this is far too little input to guide correct 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 clearly states the tool updates a row in a table, identified by primary_key, and this distinguishes it from insert/delete/browse sibling tools. However, the description is generic enough that the database engine distinction relies on the tool name rather than the description itself.
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 about when to use this update tool versus its siblings (e.g., postgres_insert_row, postgres_delete_row, or mysql_update_row). No preconditions, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.