Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
DBHub

DBHub

by bytebase
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

execute_sql

Destructive

Run SQL statements against a SQLite database, including multiple semicolon-separated queries, to retrieve or modify data through DBHub.

Instructions

Execute SQL queries on the sqlite database

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": "execute_sql"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sqlYesSQL to execute (multiple statements separated by ;)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.5.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a destructive, non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds no behavioral context such as the risk of data modification, multi-statement execution, or transactional implications, so it leaves the full behavioral burden to the annotations and schema.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized but perhaps too terse given the tool's destructiveness.

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 destructive SQL execution tool with no output schema, the description omits important operational context: that it can modify or drop data, that multiple statements are allowed, and how errors or results are handled. The annotations cover safety hints, but the description itself is incomplete for this complexity.

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 schema fully documents the single sql parameter, including that multiple statements can be separated by semicolons. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline score of 3 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: execute SQL queries on the SQLite database. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_objects beyond implying arbitrary SQL execution rather than structured search.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus search_objects, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied usage is that you have SQL to run, which is not enough to route an agent between alternatives.

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