@orphnet/d1-eloquent-mcp

by Orphnet

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0-beta.2
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (list vs read vs make vs run vs validate). Even closely related tools like validate_model and validate_all are clearly differentiated by scope (single vs all). There is no ambiguity in purpose.
Naming Consistency4/5
The overwhelming majority use verb_noun snake_case (list_*, make_*, run_*, read_*). The only deviation is migration_status, which uses noun_noun instead of a verb prefix, but this is a minor inconsistency that does not hinder readability.
Tool Count3/5
At 24 tools, the set falls in the 16-25 range that feels heavy. While each tool serves a distinct purpose in the D1/Eloquent workflow, the high number may be overwhelming and includes some conveniences (like make_resource) that could be assembled from others.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: listing/reading artifacts, scaffolding (model, migration, seeder, factory, pivot), running migrations/seeds/rollbacks, schema inspection, validation, and even raw SQL queries. No significant gaps are apparent for the stated scope.
Average 3.6/5 across 24 of 24 tools scored. Lowest: 2.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Run seeders' without clarifying side effects, idempotency, or whether this is a mutation. The delegation to a command is not informative for behavioral traits.
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 very short (two sentences) but lacks structure and fails to front-load critical information. While not verbose, the brevity sacrifices completeness, making it only minimally adequate.
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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, what happens when no seeder is specified, or whether the operation is safe to repeat. For a tool with several siblings, this is insufficient.
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 100% for the single parameter, meeting the baseline. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying that omitting the 'seeder' parameter runs all seeders, or explaining the format of the seeder name.
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 states 'Run seeders' which is a clear verb+resource. It distinguishes the tool's function from siblings like 'run_migrate' or 'run_rollback' by focusing on seeding, though it does not explicitly differentiate from 'run_fresh' which also may involve seeding.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'run_fresh' or 'run_migrate'. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions delegation to 'd1-eloquent make:seeder' but does not explain side effects (e.g., files created, directory structure, overwrite behavior), permissions needed, or whether this is a safe operation. The agent lacks critical behavioral context.
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?
The description is brief with two short sentences, but the second sentence ('Delegates to...') adds some operational context. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.
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 tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what the output is (e.g., path to created file, success message, any generated code template) nor the behavior on error (e.g., if seeder already exists). The agent is left guessing about the return value and error handling.
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 100% (one parameter with a basic description 'Seeder name'). The description does not add additional meaning, such as naming conventions, required format, or constraints. Baseline is 3 given full schema coverage.
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 creates ('scaffold') a new seeder. The verb 'scaffold' and object 'seeder' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'run_seed' (which runs seeders vs. creating them), though the distinction is partially implied by 'scaffold' vs. 'run'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_seed' or 'list_seeders'. The description does not mention when scaffolding is appropriate or any prerequisites (e.g., existing project or configuration for d1-eloquent).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions delegation to a command, but fails to describe side effects (e.g., file creation, overwrite behavior, required environment) that an agent should know.
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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded. However, its brevity omits important information like naming conventions or location, making it too sparse to be fully helpful despite being concise.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the output (e.g., what file is created), any naming rules, or how it relates to the many sibling make tools. More context is needed for 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?
Schema coverage is 100% (one parameter 'name' with description 'Factory name'). The description adds no extra meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'scaffold' and resource 'factory', clearly distinguishing it from sibling make tools like make_model or make_migration. The delegation detail reinforces the tool's identity.
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 other make tools or alternatives. It merely states what it does without context or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to state side effects (e.g., creating a file in the project), whether the operation is read-only or destructive, auth requirements, or what happens if the table name is invalid or already exists. The brief description leaves significant behavioral gaps, which is problematic for a tool that creates files.
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?
The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence adds value: the first states the core purpose, the second provides implementation detail. It is efficient without unnecessary words, though it could be more structured (e.g., separate usage guidance).
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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is somewhat complete for purpose. However, it lacks essential details for usable execution, such as side effects (file creation), required dependencies (e.g., existing D1 connection), and error behavior. The sibling tools include many scaffolding and migration tools, and the description does not address how pivot differs from make_migration or when to prefer this over manual methods.
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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('Pivot table name'), so the schema itself documents the parameter. The description adds no supplementary meaning beyond 'Pivot table name', but the high coverage means the schema suffices. Baseline of 3 is appropriate; the score is 4 because the description's clarity reinforces the parameter's role (e.g., the 'table' parameter is the pivot table name, consistent with the description's focus on 'pivot table migration'). However, it could add format or naming conventions.
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 creates a pivot table migration ('Scaffold a pivot table migration'), using a specific verb and resource. While it distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like make_migration, it does not explicitly differentiate from other scaffold tools in the sibling list, such as make_model or make_factory, but the specific 'pivot' focus and reference to the underlying command provide good clarity.
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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like make_migration or other scaffolding tools. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a related model or migration context), exclude cases (e.g., skip if table already exists), or provide context for decision-making. The implied usage is simply to create a pivot migration, but without explicit guidelines, the agent may misuse it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'apply pending migrations' and the delegated command, but does not clarify that this modifies the database schema, whether it is reversible, what 'pending' means, or what permissions are required. The agent has little insight into side effects or safety.
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?
The description is very short (two sentences) and to the point. It contains no filler or redundant information. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., a sentence about what happens after execution) without losing conciseness.
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 lack of output schema, annotations, and parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the outcome (e.g., success indications, error cases), the scope ('local D1' is mentioned but not elaborated), or how it relates to the migration lifecycle. An agent may not know what to expect after calling 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 input schema fully covers the interface. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, as there are none.
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 applies pending migrations, a specific verb+resource combination. It adds context by mentioning delegation to a specific command ('d1-eloquent migrate') and target ('local D1'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'run_fresh' or 'run_rollback', which are also migration-related.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'run_fresh', 'run_rollback', or 'migration_status'. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical workflow, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions delegation to a command, leaving out critical details: whether files are overwritten, what directory they land in, side effects (e.g., triggering events), or required project state. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's full impact.
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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the purpose ('Scaffold a new model file') and providing immediate implementation context. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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?
Despite low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, and any mention of file placement or overwrite policy. For a file-generation tool with zero annotations, the agent needs more context to safely invoke it.
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 100% and both parameters ('name' and 'softDeletes') have clear descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but given the schema's self-sufficiency, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool scaffolds a new model file using a specific verb ('Scaffold') and resource ('model file'). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'make' tools (e.g., make_factory, make_migration) by explicitly referencing model generation and delegating to a known command (`d1-eloquent make:model`).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like list_models or read_model serve different needs, but the description omits any contextual advice on prerequisites, overwrite behavior, or typical workflow placement. The purpose is implied but not explicitly framed with usage boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions scaffolding four items and delegating to a command, but discloses no behavioral traits: whether it overwrites existing files, if idempotent, error handling, or required permissions. For a generative tool that creates files, this is a significant gap.
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?
Two sentences, brief and to the point. First sentence defines purpose effectively. Second sentence mentions delegation to an internal command, which is less valuable for an agent. Could be slightly more efficient by omitting implementation detail, but overall not verbose.
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 tool creates multiple artifacts (model, migration, seeder, factory), lacks output schema, and has no annotations, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain what each artifact is, where files are placed, naming conventions, or impact on project structure. An agent lacks sufficient context to anticipate outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 2 parameters with 50% schema description coverage (name described, softDeletes undocumented). The tool description adds no parameter information at all, failing to compensate for the undocumented softDeletes parameter or provide any additional context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool scaffolds model, migration, seeder, and factory in one operation, with a specific verb ('scaffold') and resource scope ('makes:resource'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like make_model, make_migration, etc. that create individual components.
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?
The description implies usage when wanting to create all four artifacts at once, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like make_model or make_migration. The phrase 'in one go' suggests convenience, but there are no exclusions or prerequisites stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Read-only', which is a valid safety hint, but fails to mention side effects (none expected), error handling (e.g., if migration not found), or output format. For a simple read tool, this is insufficient—the agent lacks information about what happens on failure or what exactly 'source' means (code content vs. file path?).
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no redundant words. Every word earns 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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'source' means, how to differentiate from 'read_file' or 'read_model', or what the return value looks like. The agent lacks enough context to reliably select and invoke the tool among 23 siblings.
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 100% (the single parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Return the source of a migration file. Read-only.' which uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('source of a migration file'), and the 'Read-only' qualifier adds clarity. The name 'read_migration' further distinguishes it from siblings like 'read_model' or 'read_file'. No tautology or vagueness.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as 'read_file', 'read_model', 'list_migrations', or 'migration_status'. The description does not address prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects and behavioral traits. It only states delegation to a command but does not mention file creation, idempotency, required permissions, or output behavior. This lack of transparency may lead to incorrect expectations.
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 two sentences long with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second adds useful implementation detail. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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 has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic action. However, it lacks context on what file is created, where, and any prerequisites (e.g., being in a project root). This could be improved for a more complete picture.
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% and the schema already describes the 'name' parameter as 'Migration name (snake_case)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting but not exceeding the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Scaffold a new migration.' The verb 'scaffold' and resource 'migration' are specific, and the sibling tools include other 'make_' tools for different resources, so it distinguishes itself effectively.
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 or when not to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_migrate' or 'make_model'. There is no mention of prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for transparency. It does not disclose what 'discovered migration files' means, whether it scans a specific directory, or if it has performance implications. The 'Read-only' declaration is helpful but incomplete.
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 extremely concise at only 8 words, clearly front-loaded with the purpose, and every word adds value. No wasted content.
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 has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose and read-only nature. However, for completeness, it could mention that this is a discovery/list operation versus showing migration status or content, especially given the large sibling set.
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 input schema defines no parameters and has 100% schema description coverage, so the description's job is low. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but none are needed since there are no parameters. The phrase 'with timestamps' adds slight value about the nature of the results.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('discovered migration files with timestamps'), which clearly conveys what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_seeders' and 'list_models' by focusing on migrations, but does not explicitly differentiate from 'read_migration' or 'migration_status'.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'migration_status' or 'read_migration'. It lacks context for prerequisites, expected workflow position, or situations where this is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the core behavior of updating cached state, but it does not clarify side effects, safety (read-only vs. mutating), idempotency, or whether it touches project files. With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and this is only minimally transparent.
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 sentence with no filler, directly stating the purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters and avoids unnecessary verbosity.
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?
The description gives the main action but lacks context about when to run, potential side effects, and what 'project discovery' entails. For a state-changing tool without annotations, this is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.
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 there is no parameter information needed. The description appropriately focuses on the action rather than parameters, and the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, which is warranted here.
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 identifies the tool's function with a specific verb ('re-run') and resource ('project discovery'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools that target models, migrations, or factories. It is not a tautology and provides a clear sense of scope.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no scenarios where it is appropriate (e.g., after adding project files). The context is implied at best, leaving the agent without decision-support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature and what is returned (source code + parsed metadata). However, it does not mention error handling for non-existent models, auth requirements, or performance considerations, which would improve transparency further.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. No extraneous text or repetition exists. Every word 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?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what it does and what it returns. It breaks down the parsed metadata into 'relations, casts, static config', giving the agent useful context. However, it could be slightly more precise about the output format (e.g., raw source code string with metadata as a structured object).
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 100% as the only parameter 'name' is well-described in the schema ('Model class name (e.g. 'User')'). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'full source code of a model file plus parsed metadata (relations, casts, static config)'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_migration (migration files), read_file (any file), and list_models (list only) by specifying both source code and parsed metadata.
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 only says 'Read-only' which implies safety but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_models for exploring models or validate_model for checking correctness. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions are present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits details such as error behavior (e.g., file not found), support for binary files, encoding assumptions, or any file size limits. The basic safety profile is provided but not comprehensive.
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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler, no repetition. Every word adds value. It front-loads the core action and scope, then adds the read-only note. Perfectly structured for quick agent scanning.
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 (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and safety. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., plain text vs. base64 for binary) or error handling. For a tool that reads arbitrary files, an agent would benefit from knowing what kind of content is returned, which is missing.
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 describes the 'path' parameter as 'Relative project path' with 100% coverage. The description adds a slight clarification ('relative to project root') and implies the path can point to any file. This adds minor value beyond the schema, but the parameter semantics are mostly already conveyed by the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Read'), the resource ('any project file'), and the scope ('by path relative to project root'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings which are focused on specific entities like models, migrations, or seeding operations.
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?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling names imply this is for generic file reading and others are for specific operations, no direct guidance or exclusions are provided. The phrase 'any project file' gives context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 disclosing behavioral traits. It states the core action ('Roll back') but does not mention potential consequences, prerequisites, or failure modes. The reference to delegating to 'd1-eloquent rollback' adds implementation detail but not operational transparency.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. Both sentences provide useful information: the primary action and the underlying command. There is no wasteful repetition or filler.
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 (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks broader context such as when to use it (e.g., after a migration run) or any cautions about rolling back. A complete description for this mutation tool could include minimal contextual guidance.
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, and the input schema is empty. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. It correctly adds no redundant parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Roll back the last migration batch.' It uses a specific verb+resource structure and can be easily distinguished from sibling tools like run_migrate and run_fresh.
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?
The intended use is implied by the name and description ('Roll back the last migration batch'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, such as when not to use it or what state the project should be in.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool is 'Read-only', which indicates no side effects, but does not explain what 'discovered' means (e.g., file system scan vs. registered entries) or the response format. Adequate for a simple list, but lacks depth.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero wasted words. The action and read-only nature are stated first, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
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 parameterless read-only listing, the description is nearly complete. However, it does not specify whether the output includes file paths, names, or timestamps, and 'discovered' is ambiguous. With no output schema, additional details would help, but the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable.
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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description needs no parameter details. The 'List discovered seeder files' text adds no param info, but the baseline of 4 applies since there are no parameters to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('seeder files'), with the 'Read-only' qualifier clarifying the operation type. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like make_seeder (creation) and run_seed (execution).
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?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., run_seed, make_seeder). The description implies a listing use case, but an agent would benefit from stating when to prefer listing over executing or creating seeds.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It does mention 'Read-only', which is important, but omits details like whether the tool scans file system or relies on a pre-loaded project state, and what happens if no models are found.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('List all') and immediately gives output details. Every word is meaningful and there is no redundancy.
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?
For a zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete but could clarify the source of 'discovered' models (e.g., project's model directory) and any prerequisites (e.g., project must be loaded or refreshed).
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 and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. Baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and this is met.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies exactly what the tool does: 'List all discovered BaseModel subclasses in the project', with additional details on output content (table names, feature flags). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_seeders or list_migrations.
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?
The description only says 'Read-only', implying it is safe to use without side effects, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., read_model for details on a single model). No usage context or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key safety trait ('Read-only') and adds nuance with 'actually applied'—implying it reflects real database state rather than just migration files. This goes beyond a simple read hint, though it doesn't detail potential errors or permissions.
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?
Two sentences with zero filler. Front-loads the action and purpose, then adds a crucial safety qualifier. Every word 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?
For a simple read-only inspection tool, the description covers the essential aspects: action, target, output, and safety. There is no output schema, but the return value is implied. It could mention column detail specifics, but is sufficiently complete for its simplicity.
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% with clear descriptions for both `db` and `table`. The description reinforces the optional scope but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Query the local D1 `sqlite_master`'), a concrete resource (sqlite_master), and the exact output ('list every table + the column definitions actually applied'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `query_d1` or `list_models`, making the purpose unmistakable.
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?
The description implies usage: when you need to inspect actual table definitions. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools like `query_d1` could theoretically do similar, but no comparison is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Explicitly states 'Read-only', which is the key behavioral trait for a list tool. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it adds sufficient safety context.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Adequate for a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema. Could be improved by clarifying what 'discovered' means, but it's functionally complete.
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?
No parameters exist, baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('discovered factory files'), with 'Read-only' distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'make_factory' which create files.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., list_seeders, list_models). No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavior (validates all discovered models) and output format (per-model issues, summary counts), but lacks details on side effects, performance implications, or whether permissions are needed. This is adequate but not rich.
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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and return value. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and return format. It could be slightly more explicit about the structure of per-model issues, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand when and how to use it.
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 input schema has zero parameters with full coverage (trivially 100%), so the description does not need to add parameter details. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 applies for tools with no parameters, and the description provides no conflicting or additional semantic information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'runs validate_model across every discovered model', specifying the action (validate) on the resource (all models). It returns per-model issues and a summary count, making it specific and distinguishable from sibling 'validate_model', which likely operates on a single model.
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?
The description implies the tool is for bulk validation, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'validate_model'. There is no guidance on when not to use it or any prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose safety and side effects. It correctly states it is a read/compare operation with no destructive action. However, it doesn't mention error behavior (e.g., what if model doesn't exist or schema is unreachable), rate limits, or if it alters any state. The description adequately describes the core behavior but omits edge-case transparency.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Compare a single model's declared shape') and lists the specific aspects checked. Every phrase is necessary; there is no redundancy or filler. The length is appropriate for the tool's moderate complexity.
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?
Given the minimal input schema (1 param, no enums) and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for the tool's inputs and outputs. It explains the source of comparison ('declared shape' vs 'actual local D1 schema') and the output ('list of issues'). However, it could be more complete by hinting at the structure of those issues (e.g., 'field type mismatch, missing column'), but the current level is adequate.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter ('name'). The description adds value by explaining that 'name' refers to a 'Model class name' (not a file name or table name) and implies it must correspond to a Laravel model. This context is richer than the schema's 'Model class name' alone, though the schema's description is already clear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('a single model's declared shape...against the actual local D1 schema'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like 'validate_all' or 'list_models'. It also specifies the exact fields checked (table, casts, softDeletes, timestamps, revisions) and the output type (drift issues), making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description implies this tool is for validating one model, but does not explicitly contrast it with 'validate_all' (which presumably checks all models). It also doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., model must exist, D1 schema must be accessible) or when not to use it. The context allows inference, but the description lacks direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses read-only nature and automatic CLI binding resolution. With no annotations, description provides useful behavioral context beyond schema.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second explains key behavioral detail.
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?
Covers purpose, read-only guarantee, and setup dependency. Lacks explicit mention of returned format or prerequisites (local D1 + wrangler config), but sufficient given tool's simplicity and no output schema.
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?
No parameters exist; baseline 4 per guidelines. Description adds no param info because none needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it runs `d1-eloquent status` to show migration run/pending state. Specific verb and resource differentiate from siblings like list_migrations or run_migrate.
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?
Implied usage: check migration progress. No explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., list_migrations shows all migrations, status shows run/pending). Automatic binding resolution is helpful but usage context is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation is read-only and that writes and multi-statement payloads are rejected, which are the key behavioral traits. Additional details like authentication or rate limits are not mentioned, but the core safety profile is well communicated.
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 sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and key restrictions. No fluff or redundant information.
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?
Given the simple tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and siblings focused on unrelated operations, the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies allowed SQL types, read-only nature, and rejection of multi-statement/writes. Could optionally mention result format, but not essential.
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% (both 'db' and 'sql' are described in the input schema). The description adds no extra parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'Run' and resource 'local D1', and explicitly lists allowed SQL statement types (SELECT, WITH, EXPLAIN, PRAGMA). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools which are all about model/factory/migration operations, making purpose unambiguous.
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 clearly states the tool is for read-only SQL queries and explicitly notes that multi-statement payloads and writes are rejected. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for write operations, though the context of siblings makes that somewhat implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states dry-run writes nothing and write=true emits migration files. It mentions delegation to d1-eloquent generate. It does not explicitly declare read-only versus destructive, but the behavior is described well. Would benefit from stating it does not alter the database directly.
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?
Three sentences covering purpose, default behavior, write mode with next step, and technical delegation. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Well-structured and front-loaded.
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?
Given no output schema, the description usefully mentions the output format (prints per-model added/dropped/type-changed columns). It covers the main usage flow. Missing details on error cases or prerequisites, but overall sufficient for a tool with 3 optional parameters.
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 100%, baseline 3. The description does not repeat parameter details or add significant new meaning beyond the schema. It provides context for the write parameter (default false, write mode), but the schema already covers that. No added depth for name or model.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool diffs models against migrations and reports what a reconciling migration would change. It distinguishes itself from siblings like run_migrate and run_rollback by focusing on generating migration files, and explicitly mentions a fallback to run_migrate as a next step.
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 provides explicit guidance: dry-run by default, use write=true to emit files, review then run migrate. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context from sibling names (run_migrate, run_rollback) implies the workflow. Minor improvement could add a when-not directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description clearly states that it drops all tables (destructive action) and delegates to a specific command (`d1-eloquent fresh --force`), providing transparency about the underlying behavior and the force flag.
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 extremely concise at just two sentences, with no unnecessary words. The first sentence immediately conveys the core action, and the second provides a technical reference. Every part is essential.
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?
Given the tool has zero parameters, no output schema, and is a simple destructive action, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what happens, how it works (via delegation), and the severity (force flag). One could argue it lacks return value info, but for a destructive reset with no output schema, the current description is adequate.
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 input schema has no parameters (0), and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially satisfied). The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool does without needing to elaborate on parameters, which is appropriate since no parameters exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool drops all tables and re-runs every migration, with a specific verb ('drop' and 're-run') and a clear resource (database tables and migrations). It distinguishes itself from siblings like `run_migrate` or `run_rollback` by indicating a destructive reset, not just a simple migration run.
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 implicitly warns that this is a destructive operation ('drop all tables'), which strongly implies it should be used when a fresh start is needed, not in production. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or provide alternatives, such as suggesting `run_migrate` for incremental updates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

@orphnet/d1-eloquent-mcp MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

[![@orphnet/d1-eloquent-mcp MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Orphnet/d1-eloquent-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Orphnet/d1-eloquent-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![@orphnet/d1-eloquent-mcp MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Orphnet/d1-eloquent-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Orphnet/d1-eloquent-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Orphnet/d1-eloquent-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server