Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
db-conn-mcp

db-conn-mcp

by Idle-Sync
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

diff_schemas

Compare two configured database schemas to identify missing tables and per-table column, type, default, and key differences, helping verify that a migrated copy matches its source.

Instructions

Compare the schemas of two configured databases (tables, columns, PK/FK).

Reports tables only in one side, and per-table column/type/default/key differences. Use to verify a migrated copy matches its source of truth.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "database_a": "<database_a>",
      "database_b": "<database_b>"
    },
    "name": "diff_schemas"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
database_aYes
database_bYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does well on output semantics: it discloses that tables present on only one side are reported, and that per-table column, type, default, and key differences are enumerated. It omits what is NOT compared (indexes, views, triggers), whether the operation is strictly read-only, and any cost or latency caveat for large schemas.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the core action, then scope of output, then the intended use case; nothing is padding. The phrasing "Reports tables only in one side" is slightly awkward and could read more cleanly, which keeps it off a 5.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description covers what is compared and roughly what the result contains, which is what an agent needs to choose and call it. The remaining gap is the missing statement of comparison boundaries (which schema objects are ignored), which matters for interpreting a partial diff as a clean one.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and both parameters are bare strings titled "Database A" and "Database B". The description's phrase "two configured databases" adds real meaning by implying these are names/aliases from a configured connection set rather than raw DSNs or files, but it does not confirm that, nor say whether the pair may be from different engines.

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?

"Compare the schemas of two configured databases" gives a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical enumerates the compared elements (tables, columns, PK/FK). The two-database scope implicitly separates it from single-database siblings like get_database_schema or dump_schema_faithful, though no sibling is named outright.

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?

"Use to verify a migrated copy matches its source of truth" supplies a concrete triggering scenario, which is more than most definitions offer. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming alternatives (e.g., calling get_database_schema twice for a single-object check), so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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

This server cannot be deployed

Other Tools