MCP OpsBridge

db_delete_rows

Remove unwanted rows from a database table by specifying a table, a WHERE condition, and parameter values. Requires approval before deletion.

Instructions

Delete rows from a table matching a WHERE clause (requires approval)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "table": "<table>",
      "where": "<where>",
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "db_delete_rows"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`table`	Yes	Table name to delete from
`where`	Yes	WHERE clause (e.g., "last_login < $1")
`params`	Yes	Parameter values for WHERE clause

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose an important trait (approval required) and implies destructive action, but omits details like whether deletion is permanent, whether affected rows are reported, or any error/rollback behavior. This is partial but not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes a crucial caveat (approval). It contains no fluff or redundant phrasing, making it highly scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values or side effects more fully. It does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., number of rows deleted) or when to prefer this over truncate/drop. The approval note is a positive signal, but the overall context feels incomplete for a destructive operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema fully describes all three parameters (table, where, params) with examples and types. The description adds little beyond restating the WHERE clause concept. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to compensate, but it also offers no extra semantic value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Delete rows from a table matching a WHERE clause'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling deletion tools like db_truncate_table and db_drop_table by emphasizing the conditional WHERE clause.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context by indicating this is for deleting specific rows based on a condition ('matching a WHERE clause') and notes a critical usage requirement: 'requires approval'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., truncate for all rows), so it stops short of fully explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.