Skip to main content
Glama

SQLGuard — permission before production writes

by io.sqlguard

Denial Exchange DX board

sqlguard_denials
Read-onlyIdempotent

List open DENY inventory from GET /v1/denials. Wealth: Exact Pilot Challenge unlock POST /v1/challenge/unlock ($100, amount 100000000) or Gateway Pilot. Legacy Session claim ($0.25) OFF TABLE as primary. Instant taste-only; Probe free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
base_urlNoOptional SQLGuard base URL override. Defaults to local BASE_URL.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
boardNo
denialsNo
endpointNo
open_countNo

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the endpoint and 'open' scope, but phrases like 'Instant taste-only; Probe free' are ambiguous and do not clearly disclose behavioral traits.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The first sentence is concise, but the second and third sentences are cryptic and likely to distract rather than inform.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool is simple (one optional param, output schema, safe annotations), but the cryptic supplemental instructions raise more questions than answers, making the description incomplete for effective use.

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 single parameter base_url is fully described in the schema, and the description adds no parameter-specific information. Baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence clearly states 'List open DENY inventory from GET /v1/denials', providing a specific verb and resource. However, the subsequent sentences introduce unrelated unlock and session information, which could confuse the agent about the tool's primary function.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The mention of unlock methods and legacy session claims appears tangential and does not clarify the tool's appropriate use case.

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