Inserts one or more records into a MySQL table via parameterized queries. Supports batch inserts, optional database selection, and duplicate ignoring.
Inserta uno o varios registros en una tabla (consulta parametrizada). Cada registro es un objeto columna -> valor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table | Yes | ||
| records | Yes | ||
| database | No | Base de datos a usar (por defecto la actual de la conexión activa) | |
| ignoreDuplicates | No | Usar INSERT IGNORE |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one useful trait — the insert uses a parameterized query — but says nothing about the 1000-row cap, duplicate handling, transaction/partial-failure behavior, or what happens on a constraint violation.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the record shape. No filler, though the parenthetical about parameterized queries is more behavioral than definitional and could have been expanded instead.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it conveys the write action and the shape of input rows, but omits return/affected-rows behavior and error semantics for a batch insert.
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 coverage is 50% (database and ignoreDuplicates are documented in the schema, table and records are not). The description explains that each record is a column->value object, which partially compensates for records, but 'table' remains undocumented in both places.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Inserta uno o varios registros en una tabla') and clarifies the mechanism (parameterized query, column->value objects). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_records, delete_records and select_records, though it never contrasts itself with the more general run_query/execute_sql.
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 prefer this tool over update_records, run_query or execute_sql, nor any prerequisites (e.g. table must exist, column names must match the schema). Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.