ThinAir Data

query_firewall

Destructive

Manage per-connection SQL rules: block dangerous patterns, require WHERE on large tables, log PII access. [ARCHITECT tier]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sql`	No	SQL to test against rules
`action`	Yes	What to do
`message`	No	Message shown when rule triggers
`pattern`	No	Regex pattern to match
`rule_name`	No	Rule name
`connection`	No	Target 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.
`block_action`	No	Action when matched (default block)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`meta`	No
`display`	No
`summary`	No
`insights`	No

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. However, the description does not clarify which actions are read-only (list_rules, test_query) versus destructive (add_rule, remove_rule), nor the side effects of modifications. This is a significant gap for a tool with mixed safety profiles across actions.

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 one sentence with a clear structure, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes a tier tag. It is concise and free of wasteful words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description is too high-level for a tool with four actions; it does not enumerate them or mention that connection resolution is required. The rich schema covers parameter details, but the description omits the action taxonomy, making it slightly incomplete for a new agent to understand the full scope of the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, with every parameter including a description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information; the schema carries the full burden, which it handles well (e.g., connection resolution guidance).

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 manages per-connection SQL rules, with concrete examples (block dangerous patterns, require WHERE, log PII). This distinguishes it from query execution tools like query_sql and explain_query, and the resource is specific.

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 enforcing SQL security policies via the examples, but it provides no explicit comparison to alternatives or exclusions. It does not say when to use this instead of query_sql, pii_scan, or other related tools.

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

All ThinAir Data tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

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

Need Help?