rush

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

rush_sql

Check SQL code for lint errors using sqlfluff, without modifying files. If sqlfluff is unavailable, returns a skipped status.

Instructions

Check SQL without rewriting; missing sqlfluff returns status='skipped'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`raw`	No
`tool`	No
`engine`	No
`status`	No
`metrics`	No
`summary`	No
`findings`	No
`metadata`	No
`artifacts`	No
`duration_ms`	No
`review_kind`	No
`engine_version`	No
`review_provider`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.2Sep 15, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / metrics / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": {
-      "anyOf": [
-        {
-          "type": "integer"
-        },
-        {
-          "type": "number"
-        },
-        {
-          "type": "string"
-        }
-      ]
-    },
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

First observedv0.3.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states that the tool does not rewrite SQL and that a missing sqlfluff dependency results in status='skipped'. However, it does not explain what happens when sqlfluff is present, how errors are reported, or whether the tool fails or degrades in other conditions.

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 with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded ('Check SQL without rewriting') and the dependency-fallback behavior is stated efficiently. Every clause 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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool, but the no-annotation context raises the bar. The description covers the core action and one edge case, yet it omits path semantics, alternatives, and behavior in the normal success path. The output schema may cover return values, but the description alone leaves notable 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 for explaining the 'path' parameter. It does not mention path at all. The schema only provides the title 'Path' and format 'path', which leaves ambiguity around whether path is a file, directory, glob, or something else.

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 identifies a specific action ('Check SQL') and a key distinguishing trait ('without rewriting'), which separates it from formatting tools. The name 'rush_sql' is broad, but the description narrows it to SQL checking. It does not name sibling tools explicitly, so it stops short of a 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 implies when to use the tool: when SQL needs checking without rewriting. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives like rush_lint or rush_format. Usage context is present but left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server