Update existing records in a Turso database table by specifying the target table, new data, and a WHERE condition to select rows.
Atualiza dados em uma tabela
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Dados a atualizar | |
| table | Yes | Nome da tabela | |
| where | Yes | Condição WHERE (ex: 'id = 1') |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update data,' without explaining that matching rows are modified, how the WHERE condition affects the update scope, whether the change is permanent or requires a transaction, or what the tool returns. This 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 wording. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the generic wording limits how much value the conciseness provides.
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 incomplete. It omits how rows are selected by WHERE, what the data object should contain, whether changes are committed automatically, and what the response will be. More operational context is needed for an agent to use it safely.
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 input schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions (table, data, where), and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning; in particular, the structure of the nested data object is left entirely to the schema.
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 a clear verb and resource: 'Atualiza dados em uma tabela' (Updates data in a table). It is not tautological and is clearly distinct from insert or delete operations, but it gives no detail about the scope of the update or how it differs from sibling tools beyond the basic meaning of 'update'.
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 tool versus alternatives such as insert_data, delete_data, or execute_select. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'update'; no conditions, exclusions, or sibling comparisons are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.