Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

SQL Server MCP by InsightfulPipe

by com.insightfulpipe
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

mssql Data Execute Action

execute_action
Destructive

Execute mssql action (Step 3 (FINAL) of workflow).

REQUIRED: Complete these steps first using query_contexts:

  1. request='accounts' - Get workspace_id, brand_id, connection_slug AND available_actions

  2. request='actions_details' with actions=['xxxxxx', 'xxxxxx', 'xxxxxx'] - Get detailed body structure for specific action(s) using actions from available_actions

IMPORTANT: Always call step 2 to see the exact body structure before executing.

execute_action runs write SQL (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE/DDL). Writes succeed only if your workspace role allows writes and the connected database role has the needed privileges.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "execute_action"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description aligns by stating that it runs write SQL. It adds useful context beyond annotations, namely prerequisite workflow steps and required write privileges, though it does not discuss transactionality, reversibility, or error behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the final-step workflow and uses numbered steps for the required prerequisites. It is appropriately sized for a destructive, multi-step tool, though the IMPORTANT sentence somewhat repeats the step 2 instruction.

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 a destructive write tool with an opaque body parameter and an output schema, the description covers the critical workflow, permissions, and where to obtain the body structure. It remains incomplete on the exact body schema and failure modes, but provides enough guidance 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and defines only an opaque body object, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It partially compensates by instructing the agent to retrieve the exact body structure via query_contexts actions_details, but it does not document any body fields directly.

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 states a specific operation ("Execute mssql action") and clarifies that it runs write SQL (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE/DDL), which distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like query_data. The generic word "action" is immediately contextualized, but the description does not explicitly contrast with every sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly identifies this as Step 3 (FINAL) of a workflow and requires prior query_contexts calls for workspace metadata and action details. It also warns that execution depends on workspace role and database privileges, leaving little ambiguity about when and how to use the tool.

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

All SQL Server MCP by InsightfulPipe toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources