tibero-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

explain

Read-only

Displays a SELECT or WITH statement's Tibero optimizer execution plan without running it, with indented steps, cost, cardinality, and access/filter predicates.

Instructions

Show the optimizer's execution plan as an indented tree, plus per-step cost, cardinality and access/filter predicates exactly as Tibero reports them.

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": "explain"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sql`	Yes	One SELECT or WITH statement to plan without running it.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully discloses the shape of what comes back (indented tree, per-step cost, cardinality, access/filter predicates) and that values are verbatim Tibero output, but it never states that the statement is planned rather than executed -- that lives only in the schema.

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?

One tightly packed sentence, front-loaded with the primary resource (the execution plan) followed by the supplementary details. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, so the description need only establish what the tool is and what its output looks like, which it does. The remaining gap is routing guidance against the query sibling.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, which already explains it takes one SELECT or WITH statement planned without running it. The description adds no further meaning about the sql argument, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: showing the optimizer's execution plan as an indented tree with per-step cost, cardinality and predicates. This is clearly distinct from query/describe_table by the resource named, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself against the query sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for inspecting plans rather than retrieving rows, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus query, nor any stated precondition such as needing an already-parsed statement.

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

Deploy Server