Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
eea-climate-data-mcp

eea-climate-data-mcp

by bezilaszlo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

validate_sql

Parse and validate SQL queries for safety and compliance before execution on EEA climate data. Ensures queries are allowlisted, read-only, and bounded.

Instructions

Parse and validate one allowlisted, read-only, bounded SELECT query.

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": "validate_sql"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sqlYes
max_rowsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavioral traits: it is read-only, bounded, only allows one query, and only accepts allowlisted queries. This goes beyond a generic 'validate' description, though it does not specify return format or error behavior.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the verb and packs in constraints with no wasted words.

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 simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the tool's safety and scope. However, it does not mention return behavior or how the tool integrates with sibling tools like query_sql, leaving minor gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'bounded' which hints at max_rows, but does not explicitly explain the purpose or acceptable values of either parameter. The sql parameter is obvious from context, but max_rows remains unclear.

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: parsing and validating a SELECT query. It specifies key constraints (allowlisted, read-only, bounded) that distinguish it from execution tools like query_sql and analysis tools like explain_sql.

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 for pre-validation of SELECT queries before execution, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions are given, so the guidance is only implied.

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