Skip to main content
Glama

SQLGuard — Execution Certificate Firewall

by io.github.cabbageandtea

Validate SQL (burn credit)

sqlguard_validate

Legacy prepaid burn path — OFF TABLE as wealth. For production authorize use sqlguard_challenge → Exact $100 unlock → sqlguard_verify. This tool burns prepaid credits only. Never execute FAIL or unverified certs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sqlYesProposed SQL mutation to authorize in the sandbox
agent_idYesAgent or wallet id holding prepaid credits to debit
schema_ddlYesPostgres DDL snapshot (CREATE TABLE…) the SQL will run against

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
decisionNoSandbox authorize decision
signatureNoEd25519 signature over the certificate
certificateNoUnsigned Execution Certificate payload
credits_remainingNoAgent balance after debit

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

It adds a critical side effect beyond the annotations: this tool 'burns prepaid credits only.' It also warns not to execute FAIL or unverified certs. The cryptic 'OFF TABLE as wealth' phrase weakens clarity, but the cost behavior is meaningfully disclosed.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is short, but the first clause 'OFF TABLE as wealth' is cryptic and does not earn its place. The routing guidance is front-loaded and useful, yet the jargon reduces overall clarity.

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?

For a credit-burning validation tool, it covers cost behavior, production routing, and a safety warning. Still, it does not clarify what the tool returns or what 'validated' means, and the legacy-vs-production distinction is only lightly sketched.

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%, so the parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which matches the baseline for fully covered schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the tool as a 'Legacy prepaid burn path' and contrasts it with the production flow (sqlguard_challenge → sqlguard_verify), so an agent can place it among siblings. However, it never explicitly says the tool validates SQL; the core purpose is left to inference from the title and parameter descriptions.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly routes production use to sqlguard_challenge and sqlguard_verify, and positions this tool as the legacy prepaid path. It does not fully enumerate when prepaid is appropriate, but the exclusion is explicit and actionable.

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

All SQLGuard — Execution Certificate Firewall toolsInspect
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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Multiple tools occupy the same job: challenge and pilot both sell the $100/7-day PASS; buy/catalog/cert/session/workday/validate are all legacy prepaid paths; handshake/protocol/require/sdk all provide onboarding/compliance guidance. Descriptions add PRIMARY/LEGACY labels, but an agent still has to parse heavy cross-references to avoid picking the wrong payment or authorization tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names share the consistent sqlguard_ prefix and lower_snake_case style, and each name maps to a recognizable concept. However, the set mixes noun labels (denials, gravity, session) with verb labels (bind, buy, verify), so it is not a strict verb_noun API convention.

Tool Count3/5

24 tools sits at the top of the 'heavy but borderline' range. Many could be collapsed because the legacy prepaid paths (session, workday, cert, buy, catalog, validate) are explicitly marked OFF TABLE for the primary wealth path, leaving redundant surface area.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is well covered: handshake/onboarding, challenge/pilot unlock, bind/gate/verify pre-execution checks, denials inventory, effects verification, and client status. Minor gaps exist only around explicit invoice/refund/revocation tooling, but those appear to be handled externally or by expiry.

Resources