Skip to main content
Glama

SQLGuard — permission before production writes

by io.sqlguard

Profit OS — Pilot Challenge / Gateway wealth ladder

sqlguard_profit
Read-onlyIdempotent

Machine Profit OS: wealth ONLY Pilot Challenge Exact $100 unlock (or Gateway invoice $299) first. Session/Workday/Cert OFF TABLE as primary. Bind $0.05 mandate. Probe free/not authorize. Call before picking a SKU when optimizing spend/friction.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ladderNo
primaryNo
unit_economicsNo

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds cryptic phrases like 'Probe free/not authorize' and 'Bind $0.05 mandate', but these are unclear and do not disclose concrete behavioral traits such as auth requirements or side effects beyond what annotations state.

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 suffers from fragmented grammar and unexplained jargon. It front-loads 'Machine Profit OS' but the rest is a set of terse directives that are difficult to parse.

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?

Even with no parameters and an output schema, the description fails to explain the tool's core function or return value. The cryptic constraints make it incomplete for an agent to understand when and why to invoke this tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers everything. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline is 4; no additional parameter information is provided or required.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description does not state what the tool does; it provides directives like 'wealth ONLY Pilot Challenge Exact $100 unlock' and 'Bind $0.05 mandate' without an action verb. The title hints at a profit system, but the purpose is left ambiguous.

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 explicitly names 'Session/Workday/Cert OFF TABLE as primary', telling the agent not to use those sibling tools as primary alternatives. It also instructs 'Call before picking a SKU when optimizing spend/friction', giving a specific scenario for using this tool.

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