Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
AnuragRai017

Database Updater MCP Server

by AnuragRai017
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

database-updater MCP Server

database-updater-MCP-Server MCP server

CSVおよびExcelファイルからデータベースを更新するためのModel Context Protocolサーバーです。

機能

ツール

  • update_database - CSV/Excelファイルからデータベースを更新

    • CSVおよびExcel（.xlsx, .xls）ファイル形式をサポート

    • 複数のデータベースタイプ（PostgreSQL、MySQL、MongoDB、SQLite）と互換性あり

    • 接続設定とテーブルマッピングの設定が可能

  • create_note - ノートの作成と管理（ドキュメント用）

    • データベース更新に関する重要な情報を保存

    • 変更や修正を追跡

Related MCP server: MCP Database Server

使用方法

データベースの更新

update_databaseツールを以下のパラメータで使用します：

{
  "filePath": "/path/to/your/file.csv",
  "databaseType": "PostgreSQL",
  "connectionString": "postgresql://user:pass@localhost:5432/db",
  "tableName": "target_table"
}

サポートされているデータベースタイプ

  • PostgreSQL

  • MySQL

  • MongoDB

  • SQLite

開発

依存関係のインストール：

npm install

サーバーのビルド：

npm run build

自動リビルドを行う開発用：

npm run watch

インストール

Claude Desktopで使用するには、サーバー設定を追加してください：

MacOSの場合： ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json Windowsの場合： %APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "database-updater": {
      "command": "/path/to/database-updater/build/index.js"
    }
  }
}

デバッグ

MCPサーバーはstdio経由で通信するため、デバッグが難しい場合があります。MCP Inspectorの使用を推奨します：

npm run inspector

Inspectorは、ブラウザでデバッグツールにアクセスするためのURLを提供します。

Available Tools

2 tools
create_noteB

Create a new note

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesTitle of the note
contentYesText content of the note

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a new note', which is the core action, but does not mention return values, error conditions, side effects, or any required permissions. This minimal disclosure leaves many behavioral aspects unspecified.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easily parsed.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two required string params), the description is minimally sufficient but lacks any information about expected output or edge cases. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should offer more context about what happens after creation, but the tool's low complexity keeps this from being a critical gap.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both 'title' and 'content' (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level details, so it meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 description clearly states the tool's function ('Create a new note') with a specific verb and resource. However, it adds little beyond the tool name itself and does not distinguish from any siblings (none provided), so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

The description provides no information about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion scenarios. It simply states the action, so the agent receives no strategic guidance.

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

update_databaseC

Update the database from a CSV or Excel file

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filePathYesPath to the CSV or Excel file
databaseTypeYesType of database (e.g., PostgreSQL, MySQL, MongoDB, SQLite)
connectionStringYesConnection string for the database
tableNameYesName of the table to update

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates a database, implying a mutation operation, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as required permissions, whether the update is destructive or additive, error handling, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool that performs database writes.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information, earning its place.

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?

Given the complexity of a database update tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on the update behavior (e.g., whether it overwrites or merges data), expected outcomes, error conditions, or security considerations. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for safe and 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact or providing examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('the database'), specifying the source format ('from a CSV or Excel file'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'create_note' by focusing on database operations rather than note creation. However, it doesn't specify what 'update' entails (e.g., insert, upsert, replace), keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It mentions the source file types but doesn't explain when this tool is appropriate compared to other database operations or data import methods. This lack of context leaves the agent with minimal usage direction.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 2 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • Addedcreate_note
    • Addedupdate_database
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have completely distinct purposes with no overlap: create_note is for creating a new note, while update_database is for updating a database from a file. An agent can easily tell them apart based on their different functions and target resources (note vs. database).

Naming Consistency2/5

The naming is inconsistent: create_note follows a verb_noun pattern, but update_database uses a verb_noun pattern with a different verb style (update vs. create) and lacks a clear object for the update action. While both are readable, they do not follow a predictable or uniform convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With only 2 tools, this server feels thin for a 'Database Updater' purpose. The scope suggests operations like querying, deleting, or managing database entries, but only update_database directly relates, while create_note seems out of place. This mismatch makes the count inappropriate for the apparent domain.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface is significantly incomplete for a database updater server. There are no tools for reading, deleting, or querying the database, and create_note does not align with the core domain. This leaves obvious gaps that will hinder agents in performing typical database operations.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • MCPDB - Database Access MCP

    jantuitman
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Provides Claude Desktop with secure access to multiple database connections, allowing users to query MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQLite, and SQL Server databases directly through natural language.
    -

  • MCP Database Server

    JuanYin1
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Provides Claude with direct access to databases including SQLite, SQL Server, PostgreSQL, and MySQL, enabling execution of SQL queries and table management through natural language.
    676 npm
    1
    MIT

  • MCP Database Server

    an8888allen-maker
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables Claude to connect to and interact with SQLite, SQL Server, PostgreSQL, and MySQL databases through natural language. Supports executing queries, managing tables, exporting data, and storing business insights with authentication options including AWS IAM.
    676 npm
    MIT

  • MCP Database Server

    lukhim
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Enables Claude to query and manage databases (SQLite, SQL Server, PostgreSQL, MySQL) through natural language, supporting read/write operations and schema management.
    676 npm
    MIT

Appeared in Searches