Modify an existing database index by changing its name, uniqueness, comment, or column list, with a dry-run option to preview changes before applying.
Update an index: name, unique flag, comment, or replace its columns. Supports dry_run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| unique | No | ||
| columns | No | ||
| comment | No | ||
| dry_run | No | ||
| model_id | Yes | ||
| index_ref | Yes | ||
| table_ref | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that columns can be replaced and that dry_run is supported, but it does not explain the effects of replacing columns, whether changes are immediately persisted, or what validation or side effects occur.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently covers the core updateable fields and the dry-run capability.
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 an 8-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: required identifiers are not explained, dry-run semantics are under-specified, and there is no mention of persistence or transactional behavior.
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 no descriptions, so the description adds useful meaning for name, unique, comment, columns, and dry_run. However, it does not clarify the three required parameters (model_id, table_ref, index_ref), which are critical for actually invoking the tool.
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 specific verb and resource: 'Update an index', and lists the updateable attributes (name, unique flag, comment, columns). It is clearly distinguishable from create/delete/get index tools by the verb, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like update_table or update_column.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus create_index, delete_index, or other update tools. The phrase 'Supports dry_run' hints at a workflow, but the description never explains when to invoke it or how it should be combined with transaction/commit tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.