Insert rows into a Turso table by specifying the table name and a data object containing column-value pairs. This solves adding new records to your database.
Insere dados em uma tabela
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Objeto com os dados a inserir (ex: {nome: 'João', idade: 25}) | |
| table | Yes | Nome da tabela |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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, but it only says data is inserted. It does not mention side effects, transaction behavior, failure modes, or whether data is appended versus overwritten, which is a significant 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 short sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is concise and front-loaded, though slightly under-specified in terms of behavioral context.
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 low parameter count, 100% schema coverage, and simple action, the description is minimally viable for an agent to understand what the tool does. However, the absence of any behavioral or return-value context, especially with no output schema or annotations, leaves clear gaps in completeness.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately, including an example for the data object. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Insere dados em uma tabela' clearly states the action (insert) and the resource (data into a table), so an agent can understand the core purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_data or delete_data, but the verb 'insert' is semantically distinct enough.
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 such as update_data or delete_data, and no mention of transaction requirements or constraints. The description only restates the basic action, leaving usage decisions entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.