Update existing rows in a database table by providing table name, new values, and a required WHERE condition to target specific records.
Update rows. where_sql is required, for example id = :id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table | Yes | ||
| schema | No | ||
| where_sql | Yes | ||
| params_json | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that where_sql is required and gives an example, which is a constraint, but it does not disclose what happens on update (e.g., affected rows, errors, side effects) or whether it is destructive. It also lacks information on permissions or session requirements.
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 one sentence and front-loaded with the core action, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified, providing minimal information beyond the action. It is not verbose, but it does not earn its place by conveying essential details; it reads as a stub.
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 complexity (6 parameters, 3 required) and zero schema descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It omits explanations for values_json, params_json, session_name, and schema, and does not describe return values or behavior. An agent would be unable to construct a valid call without additional documentation.
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. It only explains where_sql with an example, leaving the other five parameters (including the required values_json) completely unexplained. This is a major gap for a tool with six parameters.
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 states the action 'Update rows' with a specific verb and resource. It also gives an example of the where_sql format, making the core purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like db_insert or db_execute, though the verb is distinct enough within the db_* family.
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 like db_execute or db_query. The description only implies it is for updating rows but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., being connected), nor does it provide exclusions or alternative selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.