Skip to main content
Glama
astandrik

Local YDB MCP

by astandrik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

local_ydb_auth_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks anonymous viewer whoami status and configured YDB CLI tenant access using root credentials when configured. Use after auth hardening or password rotation to verify expected posture.

Instructions

Read-only auth audit that checks anonymous viewer whoami status and configured YDB CLI tenant access, using root credentials when rootPasswordFile is configured. Use after auth hardening or password rotation to verify the expected posture.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
profileNoNamed profile from local-ydb.config.json. Defaults to config.defaultProfile.
configPathNoAbsolute path to an explicit local-ydb config file. Missing, unreadable, oversized, or invalid explicit files fail closed instead of using defaults.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.21
    • changedInput schema / properties / configPath / description
      Previous value: -"Explicit local-ydb config file path to load for this tool call. Useful when the MCP server should pick up a different config without restart."New value: +"Absolute path to an explicit local-ydb config file. Missing, unreadable, oversized, or invalid explicit files fail closed instead of using defaults."
    • addedInput schema / properties / configPath / minLength
      Added value: +1
  2. Addedv0.1.13
  3. Removedv0.1.12
  4. Addedv0.1.5
  5. Removedv0.1.4
  6. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by revealing conditional use of root credentials when rootPasswordFile is configured, which is a meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations. No contradiction 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The read-only nature and core purpose are front-loaded, followed by a precise usage trigger. Every clause contributes meaning.

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 check tool with complete parameter schemas and strong annotations, the description provides enough context about what is verified and when it should run. It does not describe the output format, but the lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the clear 'audit/check' framing.

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%, so the input schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail, so the 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 names a specific operation ('auth audit'), a specific resource ('anonymous viewer whoami status and configured YDB CLI tenant access'), and clearly frames it as a read-only verification tool. This distinguishes it from sibling auth-mutation tools like apply_auth_hardening or set_root_password.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use after auth hardening or password rotation to verify the expected posture.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous and actionable.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools