SQLServer MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a unique aspect: database listing, table listing, schema details, ad-hoc queries, batch scripts, connection testing, and configuration changes. The two execute tools are clearly distinguished by single vs multi-statement batch execution.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase snake_case, making the API predictable and easy to learn. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a SQL Server integration, covering essential operations without redundancy or bloat. It fits squarely in the ideal 3-15 range.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete coverage for a SQL Server MCP: connection management, database/table discovery, schema inspection, and arbitrary SQL execution (both single statements and batch scripts). There are no obvious gaps that would cause agent failures.
Average 3.9/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 9 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
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that views may be included, which is a parameter detail already in the schema. It does not address permissions, error cases, or output format.
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, front-loaded sentence that clearly conveys the tool's main function without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the operation.
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 simple nature of the tool and full parameter documentation, the description is minimally viable. However, since there is no output schema, it should ideally mention return format or error behavior, which it does not.
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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the three optional parameters; it only restates the includeViews option.
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 explicitly states the tool lists tables in a specified database, with an option to include views. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_databases and describe_table.
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 use when needing to enumerate tables in a database, but it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use describe_table for schema details. It provides clear context but no explicit guidance on when not to use it.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output content (column names, types, nullable, default values, primary key), indicating a read-only inspection behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that it performs no modification or any permission requirements, but for a describe operation this is minimally adequate.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that entirely conveys the tool's purpose with no redundant 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?
The description is sufficient for a simple describe-table tool, mentioning the return fields. Though there is no output schema, the listed attributes cover the expected output. It omits details like error conditions, but given the simplicity and schema coverage of parameters, it is adequately complete.
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 descriptions for all three parameters (table, schema, database) provide full coverage, so the description need not add parameter details. The description itself does not reference parameters, which is acceptable given the schema completeness.
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 uses a specific verb ('查看' = view) and resource ('表结构' = table structure), and explicitly lists the returned attributes (column names, types, nullable, default, primary key). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_tables, which lists table names.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any mention of when to prefer describe_table over list_tables or execute_query, nor does it state 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 states that the tool performs a read-only listing of all databases, but does not mention return format, error conditions, or permission requirements. This is adequate but minimal.
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 in Chinese, front-loaded with the action and scope. There is no unnecessary content or redundancy.
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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete for its intended purpose. It clearly defines the scope ('all databases') but could be improved by briefly indicating what information is returned for each database.
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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and the empty schema is consistent with the stated behavior of listing all databases without filters.
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 lists all databases on a SQL Server instance, using a specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like list_tables and describe_table.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and description.
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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that statements execute in order and stop on first failure ('按顺序执行，任一批次失败即停止并报告'), which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it can modify data), transactional behavior, or permission requirements—critical for a script execution 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 exceptionally concise: one sentence stating the main action and execution behavior, plus a short use-case clause. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant or filler information. Every word earns 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?
The tool is moderately complex (executes arbitrary SQL scripts) and has no annotations or output schema. The description covers the execution model and intended use but lacks safety warnings, return-value expectations, or notes about whether the script runs in a transaction. Given the potential for data modification, this omission makes the description incomplete, though not severely.
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?
All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it only restates that the script supports multiple statements and GO delimiters, which is already in the sql parameter description. No additional insight is provided for timeout or database parameters.
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: '批量执行一段 SQL 脚本' (batch execute a SQL script). It specifies the resource (SQL script) and adds distinct features like support for multiple statements and GO separators, which differentiates it from the sibling execute_query tool. The use case ('适合建表、初始化数据') further clarifies its purpose.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: for batch operations like creating tables and initializing data. It implicitly distinguishes from execute_query by emphasizing batch execution and GO delimiter support. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, which would be needed for a score of 5.
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?
无注解，描述承担了行为披露责任。它说明了设置后立即生效、下次数据库操作使用新配置，以及 persist=true 时持久化到 config.json。这些是核心行为，但未提及权限要求、验证过程或返回值。
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?
描述简洁，两句话，信息密度高，无冗余。先说明用途，再说明行为和持久化，结构清晰。
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?
核心行为（生效时机、持久化）已说明，但缺少返回值、错误处理、验证行为等。由于无输出 schema，描述未说明返回内容，对于配置变更工具来说信息不够完整。
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?
输入 schema 覆盖 100%，每个参数都有详细描述。工具描述列举了部分参数，并额外说明了 persist 的行为，但未提供超出 schema 的语法或格式细节，baseline 为 3。
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?
描述明确说明工具用于修改 SQL Server 连接配置，并列举了 server/port/instanceName/database/user/password 等关键字段。与兄弟工具（list_databases、execute_query 等）有清晰区分，动词+资源明确。
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?
描述未显式说明何时使用或排除替代工具，但从名称和功能可清晰判断这是配置变更工具，与数据查询类工具区分明显。上下文暗示了使用场景，但缺少显式替代方案说明。
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, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does explain return value behavior (rows for SELECT, affected row count for non-query) and the named parameter syntax, which is useful. However, it fails to warn about the destructive nature of DELETE/UPDATE/DDL statements, does not mention permissions or transactionality, and omits any note about irreversibility or safety measures.
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 three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, parameter syntax, and return behavior. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids any redundant filler.
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?
For a general SQL executor, the description adequately covers what it does, parameter usage, and return semantics. Given the complexity of arbitrary SQL, it would be more complete with safety warnings or transaction behavior, but the essentials for invoking the tool are present. The schema already provides parameter details, so the description need not repeat them.
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 input schema covers all 5 parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds critical usage semantics beyond the schema: the @name convention in SQL and the corresponding key format in params (no @ prefix). It also clarifies the return behavior of SELECT vs. non-query statements, which is not stated in the schema. This adds meaningful value.
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 begins with '执行任意 SQL 语句' (execute arbitrary SQL statements) and lists statement types (SELECT/INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE/DDL), making the tool's role crystal clear. This general-purpose executor is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like list_databases or describe_table, which handle metadata and connection 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 purpose is unambiguous: this tool runs arbitrary SQL, implying it is for direct database manipulation. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer execute_script over this tool, nor does it state exclusions like 'use list_tables for schema metadata'. The context is clear but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return values and notes that passwords are masked, which is important security-related context. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the 'test' wording strongly implies non-destructive action.
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 concise sentence with all necessary information: purpose, return values, and parameter note. No filler or repetition.
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?
For a simple zero-parameter tool, the description fully explains purpose and return values. No output schema exists, so listing the returned data adds completeness. It is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke.
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, and the description confirms this with '无参数' (no parameters). The schema is empty with 100% coverage, so no additional parameter explanation is needed. The baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 tests SQL Server connection and returns specific information (server version, current database, connection config with masked password). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_databases and execute_query, which have different purposes.
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 verifying connection status, but it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling context suggests it is a diagnostic tool, but no direct guidance is given.
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:

[![SQLServer-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/huang-develop/SQLServer-MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/huang-develop/SQLServer-MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![SQLServer-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/huang-develop/SQLServer-MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/huang-develop/SQLServer-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/huang-develop/SQLServer-MCP'

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