Remove a specific partition from a MySQL table by specifying the schema, table, and partition name. Use it to delete outdated or unwanted partition data while keeping the table intact.
Remove uma partição de uma tabela
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tableName | Yes | Nome da tabela | |
| schemaName | Yes | Nome do schema | |
| partitionName | Yes | Nome da partição | |
| 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. It does not disclose that this is a destructive, likely irreversible operation, whether partition data is lost, what permissions are required, or what happens to dependent objects — all critical for a 'drop' tool.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but it is minimally adequate rather than informative — it is concise at the cost of completeness. Being written in Portuguese while the sibling tool names are English adds a minor consistency issue.
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 4-parameter destructive DDL operation with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is insufficient. It omits irreversibility, authorization needs, and any statement about the effect on stored partition data.
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%, so tableName, schemaName, partitionName and connectionName are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, default, or naming-convention detail beyond that baseline.
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?
Names a specific verb (remove) and resource (a partition of a table), which clearly separates it from create_partition among the siblings. It gives no explicit contrast with alternatives, but the operation itself is unambiguous.
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 versus create_partition or other schema-modification tools, and no prerequisites or preconditions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.