Reduce MySQL table storage usage by compressing a specified table within a schema to reclaim disk space.
Comprime uma tabela para economizar espaço
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tableName | Yes | Nome da tabela | |
| schemaName | Yes | Nome do schema | |
| connectionName | No | Nome da conexão para usar |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether the table is locked or unavailable during compression, whether the operation is reversible, how long it takes on large tables, or which privileges are required.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, and the verb+resource leads the phrase. It is terse rather than padded, though the brevity becomes under-specification rather than true efficiency for a risky mutation.
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 a mutating maintenance operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits operational risk, permissions, downtime, and expected effects. The schema covers parameters, but the behavioral context an agent needs to call this safely is missing.
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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a description in Portuguese, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.
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?
The description states a specific verb+resource ('Comprime uma tabela') plus a rationale ('para economizar espaço'), so the operation is identifiable. However, it does not differentiate from related maintenance siblings such as analyze_table or archive_old_data, and 'compress' is left ambiguous across database engines.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or what prerequisites apply (write privileges, table locks, engine support). The only hint is the stated goal of saving space, which is implied usage at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.