SuperDB MCP Server

by chrismo

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.51231.6
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, such as super_db_create_pool for pool creation and super_query for query execution, but there is some overlap between super_query and super_db_query (both involve querying data) and between super_docs and super_help (both provide documentation). The descriptions help clarify differences, but minor confusion could occur.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a 'super_' prefix, such as super_db_create_pool and super_validate. This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate, with no deviations in naming style.
Tool Count5/5
With 13 tools, the count is well-scoped for a database server covering setup, querying, validation, and documentation. Each tool serves a specific function, such as super_info for setup checks and super_test_compat for migration testing, ensuring no redundancy or gaps in the core operations.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for SuperDB operations, including pool management (create, list, load), querying (query, validate), and setup assistance (info, lsp_status). Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tools for updating or deleting pools, but core workflows like query execution and migration are well-supported.
Average 3.3/5 across 13 of 13 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under BSD 3-Clause.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't cover permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a pool ID). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given that this is a mutation tool (creating a pool) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, return values, or error conditions, which are critical for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
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?
The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., if 'orderBy' affects pool creation) or provide additional context, so it doesn't exceed the baseline.
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 action ('Create') and resource ('new pool in a SuperDB database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'super_db_load' or 'super_db_list', which might also involve pool operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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. With siblings like 'super_db_load' and 'super_db_list' that might relate to pools, there's no indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusions for using this creation tool.
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, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context.
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, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a 'pool' is in SuperDB context, what format the listing returns, or any operational constraints. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools and lack of structured metadata, more context would be helpful.
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 already fully documents the single 'lake' parameter with its type and default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 action ('List') and resource ('all pools in a SuperDB database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'super_db_query' or 'super_db_load', but the verb 'List' suggests this is a read operation rather than querying or loading data.
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. With siblings like 'super_db_query' and 'super_db_load' that might also interact with pools, there's no indication of when listing pools is appropriate versus querying or loading them. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Load data') but doesn't describe what 'load' entails (e.g., overwrite, append, requires permissions), potential side effects, rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given this is a mutation tool (loading data) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or what happens on success/failure, which are critical for safe tool invocation in this context.
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 already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify the relationship between 'files' and 'data' as alternatives). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb ('Load') and resource ('data into a SuperDB database pool'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential alternatives like 'super_db_create_pool' or 'super_db_query' that might also handle data operations, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.
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 'super_db_query' or 'super_db_create_pool'. It mentions no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for selection, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
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, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Query data') but doesn't mention critical aspects like whether this is read-only or has side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the response looks like. For a database query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, immediately conveying the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the complexity of a database query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, usage context, and output details, making it inadequate for an AI agent to fully understand how to invoke this tool correctly.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain query syntax, pool selection nuances, or format implications). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb ('Query') and resource ('data from a SuperDB database pool'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'super_query' or 'super_db_list', which likely have overlapping or related functionality.
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. With multiple sibling tools like 'super_query', 'super_db_list', and 'super_db_load', there's no indication of the specific scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions for this tool.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool executes queries and returns structured results without shell escaping issues, but lacks details on error handling, performance implications, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a query tool with multiple parameters, this is insufficient.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key benefit. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits like data source handling. For a query execution tool, more context on results and limitations is needed to be fully helpful.
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 all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value by hinting at file types ('JSON, Parquet, CSV, SUP, etc.') and the 'inline data' alternative, but does not provide additional syntax, examples, or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 action ('Execute a SuperDB/SuperSQL query') and resource ('on data files'), with the specific benefit of 'Returns structured results without shell escaping issues.' It distinguishes from siblings like super_db_query by mentioning SuperDB/SuperSQL and file-based queries, though not explicitly contrasting with all alternatives.
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 siblings such as super_db_query or super_db_load, nor does it mention prerequisites like file accessibility or data formats. Usage is implied through the mention of 'data files' and 'inline data,' but no explicit when/when-not rules are given.
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, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the action ('inspect') and output ('unique shapes with counts and examples'), but does not cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only, potential side effects, performance considerations, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes key details like 'unique shapes', 'counts', and 'examples', making it highly concise and effective.
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 moderate complexity (analyzing data file schemas), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but does not address behavioral traits, usage context, or output details. This leaves the agent with incomplete information, especially for a tool that might involve data processing nuances.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'file' documented as 'Path to the data file'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as file format expectations or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.
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's purpose: 'Inspect the schema/types of a data file by finding all unique shapes (record types) with counts and examples.' It specifies the verb ('inspect'), resource ('schema/types of a data file'), and method ('finding all unique shapes with counts and examples'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'super_validate' or 'super_query', which might have overlapping functionality, keeping it from a perfect score.
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. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to siblings such as 'super_validate' or 'super_query', which could be relevant for schema-related tasks. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent with minimal usage cues.
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, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions an environmental requirement (SUPERDB_LSP_PATH), which adds some context, but it doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., completion items, error messages), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a prerequisite. There is no wasted text, and every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.
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?
Given the complexity of a code completion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., what completions look like), error handling, or behavioral traits like whether it's a read operation. This makes it inadequate for an AI agent to fully understand how to use the tool effectively.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all three parameters (query, line, character). The description doesn't add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how line and character offsets work in practice. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 action ('Get code completions') and resource ('for a SuperSQL query at a position'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like super_query or super_help, which might also involve query-related operations, so it's not a perfect 5.
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 provides some context by mentioning the requirement for SUPERDB_LSP_PATH to be set, which implies when to use it (when that environment variable is configured). However, it doesn't specify when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as super_help for general assistance or super_query for executing queries, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.
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, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions an environment requirement ('SUPERDB_LSP_PATH'), which is useful context, but doesn't describe other behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential error conditions, rate limits, or what the output looks like (since there's no output schema). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 extremely concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first part and adds a prerequisite in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without any waste. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear parameters and no complex behavior described.
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?
Given the complexity (a tool for retrieving documentation based on query position) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., documentation text, error messages) or other contextual details like performance or limitations. The environment requirement is noted, but more information is needed for a tool that interacts with a query language and LSP.
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%, meaning the input schema already documents all parameters (query, line, character) with descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how the position parameters interact or typical use cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.
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's purpose: 'Get documentation for a symbol at a position in a SuperSQL query.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('documentation'), and context ('SuperSQL query'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'super_help' or 'super_info', which might also provide documentation or information.
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 provides some usage context by stating 'Requires SUPERDB_LSP_PATH to be set,' which is a prerequisite. However, it doesn't offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'super_help' or 'super_info' (which might provide general help or info rather than symbol-specific documentation). The usage is implied but not explicitly compared to siblings.
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, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool tests queries against multiple versions to detect breaking changes, but doesn't describe how it behaves—e.g., whether it runs queries sequentially or in parallel, what output format to expect, error handling, or performance implications. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operation.
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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose and usage context. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 complexity (testing queries across versions) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure indicators, error details per version), behavioral traits, or integration with sibling tools. While concise, it falls short of providing enough context for effective agent use.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('query' and 'versions'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it doesn't provide additional context like example queries, version format details, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.
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's purpose: 'Test a query against multiple SuperDB versions to detect syntax breaking changes.' It specifies the verb ('test'), resource ('query'), and objective ('detect syntax breaking changes'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'super_query' or 'super_validate', which might have overlapping functionality.
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 provides implied usage context with 'Useful for migration testing,' suggesting when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'super_query' (for single-version queries) or 'super_validate' (for validation without version testing), and doesn't mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (retrieves documentation) and when to use it, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the documentation returns in, potential rate limits, or authentication requirements.
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 extremely concise and well-structured in just two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance and topic details. Every word earns its place with no wasted text.
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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about purpose and usage. However, it doesn't explain what format the documentation returns in or provide details about the differences between topic options, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'topic' fully documented with enum values. The description adds context about what topics are available ('expert (syntax guide), upgrade (zq migration)'), which provides semantic meaning beyond the schema's enum list, but doesn't explain the differences between the enum values.
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's purpose: 'Get SuperDB documentation' with specific use cases ('before writing complex queries or when migrating'). It distinguishes from some siblings like super_db_query or super_db_create_pool, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from super_docs which might have overlapping functionality.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('before writing complex queries or when migrating'), including specific scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, particularly super_docs which appears related.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what information is retrieved (version, config, LSP availability, instructions) and the tool's purpose (setup checks, installation learning). However, it lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. The description adds value by explaining the tool's scope but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core functionality, and the second explains usage. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's concise and well-structured for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose and when to use it.
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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and usage but lacks details on output format or behavioral constraints. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should ideally provide more context on what to expect from the tool's response, but it's adequate for a simple informational tool.
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?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents 'compare_to' as an optional path for version comparison. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but doesn't need to given the comprehensive schema.
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's purpose: 'Get SuperDB version info, environment configuration, LSP availability, and installation instructions.' It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resources (version info, config, LSP availability, instructions). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'super_lsp_status' or 'super_help', which might overlap in functionality.
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 provides clear usage context: 'Call this to check setup status or learn how to install the optional LSP for enhanced query assistance.' This indicates when to use the tool (for setup checks or installation guidance). It doesn't specify when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to understand its primary use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (check installation status and provide instructions) and mentions the LSP's purpose (enabling code completions and documentation lookup). However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or response format details that would be helpful for an agent.
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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality, while the second provides valuable context about why the LSP matters. There's no wasted language or redundancy.
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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and why. However, it doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., installation status indicators, instruction format) or potential error conditions, leaving some gaps for an agent trying to use it effectively.
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?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and context.
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 purpose with specific verbs ('check if installed', 'get installation instructions') and resources ('SuperDB LSP'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on LSP installation status rather than query execution, documentation lookup, or database operations.
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 provides clear context about when to use this tool: when needing to verify LSP installation status or obtain installation instructions. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, but the context makes it clear this is for LSP setup rather than querying or documentation access.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it's a non-executing validation tool (implying read-only and non-destructive), returns diagnostics with position information, and offers migration suggestions for specific error types. It does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or detailed output format, but covers essential behavior adequately for a validation tool.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose, behavior, and output. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or fluff, making it easy for an AI agent to parse and understand quickly.
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 complexity (a validation tool with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, its non-executing nature, and the type of output (diagnostics with position info and migration suggestions). However, it lacks details on the exact format of the diagnostics or error types, which could be helpful for an agent to interpret results, preventing a perfect score.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'query' documented as 'The SuperSQL query to validate'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as query length limits or syntax examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.
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 purpose with specific verbs ('validate SuperSQL query syntax without executing') and distinguishes it from siblings like super_query (which likely executes queries) and super_test_compat (which might test compatibility). It explicitly mentions what it does not do (execute) and what it returns (diagnostics with position info and migration suggestions).
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: for syntax validation and migration error checking, particularly for converting from 'zq' to SuperDB. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings (e.g., super_query for execution, super_test_compat for compatibility testing), which prevents a perfect score.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![superdb-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chrismo/superdb-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chrismo/superdb-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![superdb-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chrismo/superdb-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chrismo/superdb-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/chrismo/superdb-mcp'

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