safe-migrations-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

apply_change

Apply a confirmed database or configuration change proposal using a one-time confirmation token, with automatic snapshotting and transactional execution for safety and auditability.

Instructions

Apply a proposal. Requires the one-time confirmation token from simulate_impact.

Before writing, snapshots the affected file (configs) or the SQLite file, then executes inside a transaction where possible. Logs an audit entry.

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": {
      "proposal_id": "<proposal_id>",
      "confirmation": "<confirmation>"
    },
    "name": "apply_change"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`proposal_id`	Yes
`confirmation`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description covers key behaviors: requires confirmation, snapshots files, executes in a transaction, and logs audit entries. This gives the agent a good understanding of side effects, though it misses details on failure handling or idempotency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise: two sentences and a bullet-like list. It efficiently communicates purpose, prerequisite, and actions without extraneous words.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: it states what the tool does, prerequisites, and internal actions. It does not describe the return value, but output schema exists to cover that.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'confirmation token' without explaining its format or relationship to the parameter. The proposal_id parameter is not described. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter values.

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 it applies a proposal and requires a confirmation token from simulate_impact. It gives a clear purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like propose_migration_or_edit.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite of a one-time confirmation token from simulate_impact. It implies when to use the tool (after simulation), but does not provide when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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

Deploy Server