Execute write SQL statements on databases, with confirmation required for destructive operations like DROP, TRUNCATE, and ALTER.
Run a write statement. DROP, TRUNCATE, and ALTER require confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sql | Yes | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| params_json | No | {} | |
| session_name | No | default |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 behavioral burden. It does disclose one important behavior: DROP, TRUNCATE, and ALTER require confirm=true. But it does not say what happens when confirm is missing, whether the statement is auto-committed, or what side effects occur beyond the write itself.
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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the confirm requirement is a necessary, high-value warning placed right after the main description.
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 tool with four parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It leaves params_json and session_name unexplained and does not describe error behavior or the meaning of the returned output, though an output schema does exist.
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%, so the description must compensate for four undocumented parameters. It only adds meaning to confirm by specifying which operations need it; sql, params_json, and session_name receive no semantic explanation in the description.
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 identifies the tool as executing a write statement, which separates it from read-oriented siblings like db_query. The DROP/TRUNCATE/ALTER examples hint at broader SQL support, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from db_insert, db_update, or db_delete, so the boundary is not fully crisp.
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?
The phrase 'Run a write statement' implies this is the tool for write operations, and the confirm requirement suggests it handles destructive DDL. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use db_execute versus the more specialized db_insert/db_update/db_delete tools, and no exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.