Skip to main content
Glama

SQLGuard — permission before production writes

by io.sqlguard

Buy credits — LEGACY prepaid (OFF TABLE as wealth)

sqlguard_buy
Read-onlyIdempotent

LEGACY prepaid credits — OFF TABLE as wealth and primary agent buy. Prefer sqlguard_challenge (Exact $100 unlock) or Gateway invoice $299. micro|starter|builder|team remain for volume validates only, not authorize standard.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bundleYesCredit bundle to purchase: micro ($0.10), starter, builder, or team
agent_idYesAgent or wallet id that will own the purchased credits after x402 settlement

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bundleNoSelected bundle id
creditsNoCredits granted on settle
paymentNox402 payment funnel URLs and network details
agent_idNoNormalized agent id
price_usdNoList price in USD

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Annotation contradiction: readOnlyHint is true, but the description says 'Buy credits' and implies a purchase action, which is a write operation. The description also fails to explain what 'OFF TABLE as wealth' means or what actually happens when the tool is called, so it adds no useful behavioral context beyond the conflicting annotation.

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 concise with three short sentences, but the first sentence is a fragment with unclear jargon ('OFF TABLE as wealth'), which slightly reduces clarity. However, it is still efficient and front-loaded with the legacy warning.

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 covers the legacy status and usage guidance, but the annotation contradiction and unexplained 'OFF TABLE' leave gaps. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the tool's actual behavior is unclear given the read-only hint versus the buy action.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaningful context by noting that the offered bundles are only for volume validates, giving semantic guidance about when each enum value 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 the tool is for buying legacy prepaid credits with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sqlguard_challenge by labeling itself as legacy and directing users to alternatives, making its purpose unambiguous relative to siblings.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent to prefer sqlguard_challenge (Exact $100 unlock) or Gateway invoice $299, and states that the bundles are only for volume validates, not standard authorization. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All SQLGuard — permission before production writes 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

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set is dominated by overlapping buy/unlock paths (challenge, pilot, buy, catalog, cert, session, workday, sprint, profit, handshake) that are poorly differentiated, with many marked as legacy or off-table. Only a few tools (bind, gate, verify, effects) have clearly distinct roles.

Naming Consistency2/5

All tools share the sqlguard_ prefix, but the second part is a mix of nouns, verbs, and vague branding (gravity, profit, sprint, handshake). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern, making it hard to predict a tool's purpose from its name.

Tool Count3/5

24 tools is heavy for a permission gateway, and many are redundant legacy or alternative buy paths. While the count is within the 16-25 borderline range, the core functionality could likely be served by 8-10 tools.

Completeness3/5

The core authorization flow (handshake → challenge/unlock → bind/gate → verify) is present, but the surface is muddied by legacy and alternative paths that create dead ends. Missing tools for managing denials or configuring policies leave some gaps, though the central lifecycle is covered.

Resources