tables_truncate_tableRemove all data rows from a table while preserving its schema. Requires confirmation before execution.
Truncate all data rows from a table while preserving schema. Requires confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| table_name | Yes | Quote names that aren't all uppercase, exactly as list tools return them. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Input schema / properties / table_name / descriptionAdded value: +"Quote names that aren't all uppercase, exactly as list tools return them."v2.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the one piece annotations cannot convey: what survives the operation (the schema), plus the confirmation requirement. It omits whether the operation is reversible, which matters given undrop_table exists for the drop path.
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, no filler, with the effect and the preserved object front-loaded before the confirmation prerequisite.
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 an irreversible destructive mutation with an output schema and annotations present, the description covers effect and prerequisite but says nothing about recoverability or blast radius (irreversible vs. undrop-able). Adequate to invoke correctly, thin on consequences.
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 coverage is 50% and the uncovered parameter is 'confirm' (default false). The description's 'Requires confirmation' is the only signal that confirm must actually be set true rather than left at its default — meaningful added semantics beyond the schema.
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 (truncate) and resource (table) and scopes the effect precisely: all data rows removed, schema preserved. That phrasing implicitly separates it from drop_table, though it never names the sibling, so the agent must infer the boundary.
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?
'Requires confirmation' hints at a prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against drop_table, undrop_table, or DML-based deletion. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.