Permanently executes an authorized SQL mutation using a valid single-use commit token obtained from a prior dry run.
Permanently execute and commit a mutation previously authorized by 'db_dry_run'. Requires a valid, single-use commitToken.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sql | Yes | The exact SQL query that was dry-run and authorized. | |
| params | No | Optional parameterized query values. | |
| commitToken | Yes | The single-use authorization token obtained from 'db_dry_run'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does solid work: it declares the operation permanent, requires prior authorization, and constrains the token to single use. It stops short of describing failure behavior, whether a failed commit burns the token, or transaction/rollback semantics — meaningful gaps for an irreversible write.
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, zero filler. The permanence warning and the sibling dependency are front-loaded, and nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim.
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 three-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, the prerequisite, and the authorization requirement. It could say more about the result of a successful commit given there is no output schema to fall back on.
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 100%, so the schema already explains sql, params, and commitToken in detail. The description only restates the token's single-use, dry-run-derived nature, adding no syntax, format, or matching constraints beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and effect ('Permanently execute and commit a mutation') and ties itself to the prerequisite sibling 'db_dry_run', which separates it from db_query and db_explain_query. It does not address when db_distributed_commit would be preferred, so the sibling differentiation is clear but not complete.
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 usage context is explicit: this is the second half of a two-step flow that must follow 'db_dry_run' and requires a valid single-use commitToken. There are no explicit exclusions or guidance about the distributed variant, but the sequencing is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.