Insert a single row into a database table by providing table name and a JSON object of column-value pairs.
Insert one row. values_json is a JSON object of column to value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table | Yes | ||
| schema | No | ||
| values_json | Yes | ||
| 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?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention that the operation is a write, any transactional semantics, whether existing data is preserved, or error behavior. The short description leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 extremely short and to the point, front-loading the core action. However, it sacrifices necessary details for brevity, making it borderline under-specification rather than ideal conciseness.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description omits essential context: no mention of required connection, no example of values_json format, no handling of schemas, and no notes on how to construct a valid insert. An agent would need to inspect the schema and possibly the output schema to infer usage.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only explains values_json, but leaves table, schema, and session_name without any added meaning. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions.
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 the verb 'insert' and resource 'row', but does not specify the target table or clarify how columns are mapped. It is distinguishable from other db tools in name, but the description is minimal.
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 on when to use this tool versus db_execute or db_update, nor mention of any preconditions like needing a connection. Sibling tools imply context, but description fails to clarify boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.