Insert or update a project row in the projects table by unique project name, setting optional repository and notes fields without creating duplicates.
Convenience helper: insert or update a row in the projects table by unique project name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| notes | No | ||
| repoFullName | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It identifies this as an upsert mutation, but it does not explain overwrite semantics, whether omitted columns are preserved or cleared, permission requirements, conflict behavior, or what the operation returns.
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?
The description is a single efficient sentence with the key operation and resource front-loaded. There is no unnecessary text.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits important upsert behavior, parameter details, and result expectations that an agent would need before invoking it safely.
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 0%, so the description should compensate, but it only mentions the unique project name. It does not describe the roles of `notes` or `repoFullName`, nor does it clarify that `name` is required and the others are optional.
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 operation and resource: insert or update a row in the `projects` table, keyed by unique project name. It is clearer than a generic database mutation, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with `db_execute` or `db_query`.
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?
The phrase 'Convenience helper' and the table-specific behavior imply when the tool should be used: for upserting project rows by name. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of `db_execute`, `db_query`, or other database tools, nor does it state exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.