mcp-server-rdbms

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

sql_ddl

Execute DDL statements to create, alter, drop, or truncate tables across databases. Requires explicit confirmation and permission for safe schema changes.

Instructions

执行表结构定义变更 (DDL)，包含建表、改表、删表与表截断。支持多数据库路由（通过 db 参数指定目标数据库连接别名，缺省时路由至默认库）。受 --allow-ddl 权限门禁与 confirm=True 显式确认双重保护，并全量落盘独立审计流水。

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": {
      "sql": "<sql>"
    },
    "name": "sql_ddl"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`db`	No
`sql`	Yes
`confirm`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.4Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the --allow-ddl permission gate, the mandatory confirm=True explicit confirmation, default database routing when db is omitted, and full audit logging to disk. These are exactly the auth/safety/mutation-caveat facts an agent needs before calling a destructive DDL tool.

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 dense sentences with purpose front-loaded, followed by routing and then safety gates. No filler, though the parenthetical routing detail adds length that a terse reader could skim.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a mutating DDL tool the description covers scope, routing, permission gate, confirmation requirement and auditing — nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains db (target connection alias, routes to default library when absent) and confirm (True required as an explicit confirmation gate), covering 2 of 3 params. The remaining sql param is self-evident, leaving only minor gaps.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (执行表结构定义变更 / DDL) and enumerates the exact operations covered: 建表、改表、删表、表截断. The 'DDL' framing cleanly distinguishes it from siblings sql_dml and sql_query, so an agent can pick it without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the DDL scope (schema changes, not data or reads), and the db/confirm mechanics are explained. However, it never explicitly contrasts with sql_dml or sql_query, nor states when NOT to use it (e.g. use sql_query for reads). Implied, not spelled out.

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

Deploy Server