Skip to main content
Glama

TransactionCommit

Commit database transactions in RushDB to finalize changes and ensure data persistence, using a transaction ID to identify specific operations.

Instructions

Commit a database transaction

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
transactionIdYesTransaction ID

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function that executes the TransactionCommit tool logic by committing the specified database transaction using the db.tx.commit method and returning a success response.
    export async function TransactionCommit(params: { transactionId: string }) {
      const { transactionId } = params
    
      const result = await db.tx.commit(transactionId)
    
      return {
        success: true,
        message: `Transaction '${transactionId}' committed successfully`,
        data: result.data
      }
    }
  • tools.ts:431-439 (registration)
    Registration of the TransactionCommit tool in the tools array exported for MCP listTools, including name, description, and input schema validation.
    {
      name: 'TransactionCommit',
      description: 'Commit a database transaction',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: { transactionId: { type: 'string', description: 'Transaction ID' } },
        required: ['transactionId']
      }
    },
  • Input schema definition for the TransactionCommit tool, specifying the required transactionId parameter.
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: { transactionId: { type: 'string', description: 'Transaction ID' } },
      required: ['transactionId']
    }
  • index.ts:493-504 (registration)
    Dispatch and invocation of the TransactionCommit handler within the MCP CallToolRequest handler switch statement.
    case 'TransactionCommit':
      const commitResult = await TransactionCommit({
        transactionId: args.transactionId as string
      })
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: commitResult.message
          }
        ]
      }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Commit a database transaction' implies a write operation that makes changes permanent, but it doesn't specify critical behaviors like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, if it's idempotent, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for safe agent usage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and understandable.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a transaction commit tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after commit (e.g., changes become permanent, transaction ends), potential errors, or return values. Given the critical nature of database transactions and lack of structured metadata, more behavioral context is needed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'transactionId' parameter adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to compensate for gaps. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the verb ('commit') and resource ('database transaction'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'TransactionRollback' which would handle the opposite operation, missing an opportunity for clearer differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'TransactionRollback' or when it's appropriate within a transaction workflow. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., requiring an active transaction via 'TransactionBegin') or context for proper sequencing.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rush-db/RushDB'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server