Skip to main content
Glama
bpamiri

CockroachDB MCP Server

by bpamiri

commit_transaction

Finalizes database changes by committing the current transaction to ensure data persistence and consistency in CockroachDB operations.

Instructions

Commit the current transaction.

Returns:
    Commit status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool registration using @mcp.tool() decorator. Thin wrapper that delegates to connection_manager.commit_transaction() and handles exceptions.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def commit_transaction() -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Commit the current transaction.
    
        Returns:
            Commit status.
        """
        try:
            return await connection_manager.commit_transaction()
        except Exception as e:
            return {"status": "error", "error": str(e)}
  • Core implementation of commit_transaction method in ConnectionManager class. Ensures connection, validates transaction state, commits the transaction, resets autocommit, and updates state.
    async def commit_transaction(self) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Commit the current transaction.
    
        Returns:
            Commit status.
        """
        conn = await self.ensure_connected()
    
        if not self._state.in_transaction:
            return {"status": "error", "error": "No transaction in progress"}
    
        try:
            await conn.commit()
            await conn.set_autocommit(True)
            self._state.in_transaction = False
            return {"status": "committed", "message": "Transaction committed"}
        except Exception as e:
            return {"status": "error", "error": str(e)}
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool commits a transaction and returns a status, but doesn't describe what committing entails (e.g., permanent changes, potential errors, or side effects). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences that directly state the action and return value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does and hints at a return, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error conditions or dependencies, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Commit') and target ('the current transaction'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'rollback_transaction', which handles transaction termination differently, leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.

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 description implies usage in the context of an ongoing transaction (referring to 'current transaction'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rollback_transaction' or prerequisites such as needing a transaction started with 'begin_transaction'. This provides some context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or alternatives.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/bpamiri/cockroachdb-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server