MCP OpsBridge

db_drop_table

Permanently remove a database table and its data. Double approval safeguards against accidental deletion.

Instructions

Drop a table — permanently removes table and data (double approval required)

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>"
    },
    "name": "db_drop_table"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`table`	Yes	Table name to drop
`if_exists`	No	Add IF EXISTS clause

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing destructive behavior. It clearly states 'permanently removes table and data' and 'double approval required', which are critical constraints. This is strong transparency for a destructive operation, though it could also mention irreversibility explicitly (already implied by 'permanently').

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a meaningful parenthetical warning. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple destructive operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is removed, permanence, and the approval requirement. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the impact, though it does not mention return values or error handling, which are not critical here.

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 input schema covers both parameters (table and if_exists) with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action via the verb 'Drop' and the resource 'table', and adds 'permanently removes table and data' to specify scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like db_truncate_table (keeps table) and db_delete_rows (removes specific rows).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The wording implies this tool is for permanently removing entire tables, but it does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or recommend alternatives. Sibling tools like db_truncate_table or db_delete_rows are not referenced, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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