Simulate atomic mutations across PostgreSQL, Redis, SQLite, and MySQL stores, then receive one distributed commit token to preview multi-store commits safely.
Simulate atomic mutations across multi-store environments (e.g. PostgreSQL + Redis + SQLite) and receive a single distributed commit token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operations | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuinely useful behavior beyond the schema: that this is non-mutating simulation and that it returns a single distributed commit token (no output schema exists). It omits lifespan of the token, whether failures are reported per-store, locking or permission requirements, and how token validity is checked.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the outcome (commit token) is stated early. It is arguably too terse given the tool's complexity, but nothing is wasted.
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 complex multi-store transaction simulator with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description covers the essence (simulation plus token) but leaves substantial operational gaps: error semantics, atomicity guarantees, token lifetime, and the hand-off to db_distributed_commit.
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%, and the sole parameter is a nested array whose items require storeId, storeType, action (SQL/KV_SET/KV_DEL/KV_EXPIRE), and queryOrKey, plus an untyped paramsOrValue. The description adds nothing about this structure, the meaning of the action enums, or how mixed SQL and KV operations are composed.
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 ('Simulate atomic mutations') and scope ('across multi-store environments'), with concrete store examples. It does not explain how 'distributed' differs from the sibling db_dry_run, leaving an agent to infer the distinction.
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 when-to-use guidance appears. The description never says it is a prerequisite for db_distributed_commit (which presumably consumes the token it returns) or when to choose it over db_dry_run. Usage is only implied by the word 'Simulate'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.