Run write SQL statements such as INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, ALTER, CREATE, or DROP to modify a MySQL database; use with caution because it changes data and schema.
Execute a write SQL statement (INSERT / UPDATE / DELETE / ALTER / CREATE / DROP, etc).
Use with caution: this modifies the database.
Args: sql: The SQL statement to execute.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sql | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: this is destructive and mutates the database, with DROP/DELETE explicitly named. It says nothing about transaction/commit semantics, reversibility, required privileges, or error behavior, which are material gaps for an unannotated write 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?
The caution and the core verb are front-loaded in two short lines, so the agent gets the critical information immediately. The trailing 'Args: sql: The SQL statement to execute' block is pure restatement of the schema and earns no place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the destructive nature is flagged. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, however, the definition should still address commit semantics or at least note that changes are persistent and cannot be undone.
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% and the only parameter is documented with a tautology ('The SQL statement to execute'). It adds no meaning beyond the schema — no dialect/engine, no multi-statement or semicolon rules, no parameterization or escaping guidance.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Execute a write SQL statement') and enumerates the statement classes it covers (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE/ALTER/CREATE/DROP). This implicitly separates it from the read-only `query` sibling, but it never names that sibling, so the agent must infer the split.
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?
'Use with caution: this modifies the database' gives a caution signal but no routing guidance — it never says to use `query` for reads or `list_tables`/`describe_table` for introspection instead. The when-to-use is only implied by the word 'write'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.