guarded-sql-mcp

by JimmyAlter

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Open tickets

open_tickets

Read-onlyIdempotent

List unclosed tickets, highest priority first, to triage support work; optionally filter by site or priority.

Instructions

List tickets that are not closed, highest priority first, optionally filtered by site and priority.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`site`	No	Site code as returned by list_sites, e.g. "north-branch".
`limit`	No	Maximum rows to return (1-100, default 25).
`priority`	No	Ticket priority.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rows`	Yes
`hasMore`	Yes	More rows matched than were returned.
`rowCount`	Yes	Rows in this response.
`truncated`	Yes	Long values were cut or rows dropped to fit the response size limit.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0Oct 1, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "hasMore": {
+      "description": "More rows matched than were returned.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "rowCount": {
+      "description": "Rows in this response.",
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "rows": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "hostname": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "number",
+              "boolean",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "opened_at": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "number",
+              "boolean",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "priority": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "number",
+              "boolean",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "site": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "number",
+              "boolean",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "status": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "number",
+              "boolean",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "ticket_id": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "number",
+              "boolean",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "number",
+              "boolean",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "truncated": {
+      "description": "Long values were cut or rows dropped to fit the response size limit.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "rowCount",
+    "hasMore",
+    "truncated",
+    "rows"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the implicit filter ('not closed') and the sort order ('highest priority first'), which the annotations do not cover. It stops short of describing pagination or result caps.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence carrying filter, ordering, and scope with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations are rich, so return values and safety profile need not be explained. The description covers scope, ordering, and filters adequately. Only minor gaps (e.g. the limit cap) remain, and those are already in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters including the limit default (25) are fully documented in the schema. The description names only site and priority, adding no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (tickets) with precise scope: 'not closed, highest priority first'. The filters and ordering make the purpose unambiguous. No sibling tool lists tickets, so explicit differentiation isn't needed, keeping this just short of 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 Guidelines3/5

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

'Optionally filtered by site and priority' hints at when the filters apply, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any exclusion or prerequisite. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server