Skip to main content
Glama

find_n_plus_one

Read-onlyIdempotent

Detect N+1 query patterns from recent query history. Fingerprints queries and flags repeated patterns. [ARCHITECT tier]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
connectionNoTarget connection name from this tenant's inventory. Call `list_connections` to see every name + dialect, then match semantically to the user's intent (e.g. 'analytics' → a connection named `*-analytics-*`; 'prod' → a connection with `prod-` prefix). If the user didn't specify, use the tenant's default (first added). Do not invent names — resolve from `list_connections` output.
min_executionsNoMinimum executions to flag (default 5)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
metaNo
displayNo
summaryNo
insightsNo

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the detection method: 'Fingerprints queries and flags repeated patterns.' It also discloses the tier restriction '[ARCHITECT tier]', which is useful context beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose and scope ('recent query history'), the second adds the method and tier. Every word is informative.

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 presence of a rich output schema and detailed parameter descriptions in the schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's core behavior. It does not specify a time window for 'recent', but that is a minor gap. Overall, the information is complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, with both parameters (connection and min_executions) thoroughly documented in the schema, including how to resolve connection names and the default execution threshold. The description does not add extra parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states it 'Detect[s] N+1 query patterns from recent query history', using a specific verb+resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like detect_anomalies (general anomalies), explain_query (explaining single queries), and optimize_query (general optimization).

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 N+1 detection from query history, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks exclusions or alternative tool references, making the guidance only implied rather than explicit.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource/action, though some overlap exists between analyze_table and data_profile (both profile tables) and between pii_scan and configure_allowlist (both deal with PII). Clear descriptions and separation of quick vs. full analysis mitigate confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow verb_noun (add_connection, describe_schema, generate_migration), but a notable minority use noun phrases (data_profile, pii_scan, query_firewall, saved_queries, quota, impact_analysis). This mixed convention creates inconsistency, though the naming is still readable.

Tool Count3/5

26 tools is slightly over the 16-25 heavy threshold, but each tool addresses a distinct need across connection management, querying, analysis, security, and performance. While the count feels high, the breadth justifies it; however, it's approaching the 'too many' range.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle: connections (add/remove/list/test), querying (query_sql, saved_queries, cross_db_query), schema exploration/migration (describe_schema, generate_migration, impact_analysis), data quality/compliance (analyze_table, data_profile, pii_scan), performance (explain_query, optimize_query, show_locks), and monitoring (watch_table, detect_anomalies). Any gaps are minor, such as no update_connection, but that's not a core need.

Resources