Inspect a SQL query for dangerous operations, unindexed scans, and Cartesian join risks without executing it, helping prevent unsafe or costly database changes.
Analyze a SQL query for dangerous operations, unindexed scans, and Cartesian join risks without executing it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | SQL query to inspect |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does deliver the key safety trait: the query is not executed. However, it says nothing about required permissions, behavior on malformed queries, size/dialect limits, or whether analysis is exhaustive or best-effort, leaving notable 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the check categories, ending with the most decision-relevant constraint ('without executing it'). Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and the safety guarantee but leaves the return shape (severity levels, findings format) and operating constraints unspecified. Adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 ('SQL query to inspect'), so the schema already does the work and the baseline is 3. The description adds the non-execution constraint but no format guidance (dialect, multi-statement input, length limits) beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('a SQL query') and enumerates the exact hazards it inspects: dangerous operations, unindexed scans, and Cartesian join risks. The clause 'without executing it' distinguishes it from the sibling safe_query, so an agent can choose between them without opening a schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: the phrase 'without executing it' hints that this is the pre-flight/inspection option versus safe_query, but the description never explicitly says when to prefer this tool or what alternatives exist. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.