Execute a read-only SQL query against the K53 Co-Pilot Cloudflare D1 database (SELECT or PRAGMA only) with execution timing and column metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sql | Yes | The SQL SELECT or PRAGMA statement to execute | |
| params | No | Optional query parameter bindings |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / sql / descriptionPrevious value: -"The SQL SELECT or PRAGMA statement to execute [Required: non-empty valid value must be supplied]."New value: +"The SQL SELECT or PRAGMA statement to execute"Input schema / properties / sql / descriptionPrevious value: -"The SQL SELECT or PRAGMA statement to execute"New value: +"The SQL SELECT or PRAGMA statement to execute [Required: non-empty valid value must be supplied]."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it usefully discloses read-only safety and that results include execution timing and column metadata. It omits material behaviors an agent needs: row/result-size limits, timeouts, error semantics, and whether malformed statements fail closed as read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with the action and target stated first and no wasted clauses. The trailing mention of timing and column metadata is slightly tacked on but earns its place given there is no output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so the description should describe the return shape; it partially does by naming execution timing and column metadata but not row format or limits. For a raw-SQL tool with no annotations, the operational boundaries (limits, failure modes) are left unstated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both sql and params are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the sql parameter's allowed statement types and adds nothing about the params binding array. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
"Execute a read-only SQL query against the K53 Co-Pilot Cloudflare D1 database" names a specific verb, resource, and target system, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as search or get_candidate_dossier, leaving the agent to infer that this is the raw-SQL escape hatch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by constraining the statement type (SELECT or PRAGMA only), which signals an ad-hoc/read query tool. Beyond that restriction it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over the purpose-built sibling tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.