Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aapanel-mcp

aapanel-mcp

by devochkaskustikom
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Repair tables

db_repair_table

Repair one or more database tables to recover from a crash by running REPAIR TABLE on specified tables in an aaPanel database.

Instructions

Run REPAIR TABLE on one or more tables of a database, for recovering from a crash.

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": {
      "db_name": "<db_name>",
      "tables": "<tables>"
    },
    "name": "db_repair_table"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tablesYesTable names to repair.
db_nameYesDatabase name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1-alpha.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the important safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description does not need to repeat it. The added 'recovering from a crash' context is useful but does not disclose operational details such as locking, duration, or impact on live tables. No annotation contradiction.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the operation and its purpose with zero waste. Nothing is padded or restated.

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 two-parameter tool with complete schema descriptions and safety annotations, the definition covers purpose and use context adequately. It could be richer about repair risks or the sibling alternative, but no critical calling information is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (db_name, tables) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds 'one or more tables' but this is already implied by the array type, so it does not meaningfully extend parameter understanding.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run REPAIR TABLE on one or more tables of a database'), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling db_optimize_table or explain the difference between repair and optimize.

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?

Gives a clear use condition ('for recovering from a crash'), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools