Skip to main content
Glama
caron14

mcp-bigquery-dryrun

by caron14
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.2.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one provides cost estimates and metadata via dry-run, the other validates SQL syntax. There is no overlap.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern starting with 'bq_' and ending with '_sql', making the naming predictable and clear.

    Tool Count5/5

    The server is narrowly scoped to BigQuery dry-run and validation. Two tools perfectly cover this domain without unnecessary extras.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool set fully covers the stated purpose of dry-running and validating SQL queries. No obvious gaps exist for the intended functionality.

  • Average 3.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

  • This repository is archived. Archived repositories automatically receive an F maintenance tier.

  • This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.

  • 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?

    With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool performs a dry-run and returns cost estimates and metadata, but fails to mention key aspects such as idempotency (safe to call multiple times), required permissions, rate limits, or what exactly 'metadata' includes. The non-destructive nature is implied but not explicit.

    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. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or information, earning its place.

    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 tool with 3 parameters (one nested object) and no output schema, the description is minimal. It outlines the goal but omits details on return values, error handling, and edge cases. While the tool is straightforward, the lack of output schema means the description should provide more context on what the agent can expect from the dry-run results.

    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%, with each parameter described in the input schema. The description itself adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline is 3 because the schema does the heavy lifting; the description does not compensate for any gaps.

    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 performs a dry-run of a BigQuery SQL query to get cost estimates and metadata. It uses a specific verb (dry-run) and resource (BigQuery SQL query). However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'bq_validate_sql', which may also involve checking queries, reducing clarity on when to use each.

    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 alternatives like bq_validate_sql. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool is appropriate or not, leaving the agent with no decision support.

    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, and the description only states the tool validates without executing. It does not disclose what happens on invalid syntax, auth requirements, or whether it checks table existence, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

    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 8-word sentence with no extraneous information, achieving maximum conciseness.

    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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks details about return values or behavior on errors, which would help agents understand the output.

    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%; both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter information beyond what the schema already provides.

    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 the verb 'validate' and the resource 'BigQuery SQL syntax', and clearly states it does not execute the query, distinguishing it from bq_dry_run_sql which executes a dry 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 implies use for syntax checking only, not execution. It contrasts with 'without executing', but does not explicitly name when not to use or mention bq_dry_run_sql as an alternative.

    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

mcp-bigquery-dryrun MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-bigquery-dryrun MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/caron14/mcp-bigquery-dryrun'

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