Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
safe-migrations-mcp

safe-migrations-mcp

by possibly6
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

simulate_impact

Dry-run a proposal to detect errors, count affected rows, view diffs, and identify risk flags before applying changes.

Instructions

Dry-run a proposal. DB proposals execute inside a rolled-back transaction to surface errors and count affected rows. Config proposals show full diff + key delta. All results include risk flags and whether explicit confirmation is required.

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>"
    },
    "name": "simulate_impact"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
proposal_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively communicates key behaviors: dry-run nature, rolled-back transactions for DB, diff for config, risk flags, and confirmation requirement, which is thorough.

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?

The description is concise with three sentences, each serving a clear purpose without redundancy, and front-loaded with the core concept 'Dry-run a proposal.'

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the different behaviors for DB and config proposals, risk flags, and confirmation requirements adequately.

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?

The single parameter proposal_id is not described beyond its name, and schema coverage is 0%. Despite the tool's behavior being explained, no information about the format, constraints, or valid values for the parameter is provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly defines the tool as a dry-run for proposals, specifying different behaviors for DB proposals (rolled-back transaction) and config proposals (diff + key delta), which is specific and distinctive.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for testing before applying changes but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like apply_change or propose_migration_or_edit, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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