Run read-only SQL statements from SingleStore SQL Editor; data or schema changes return needs_confirmation for user approval.
Run a read-only statement from the SQL Editor app.
Statements that change data or schema are answered with
``needs_confirmation`` instead of running; the app then asks the user and
uses sql_editor_execute.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sql | Yes | ||
| database | No | ||
| max_rows | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real behavioral value by explaining that data/schema-changing statements are not rejected but returned as 'needs_confirmation' and that the app prompts the user before calling sql_editor_execute. It stays silent on return format, row-limit behavior, and error semantics, which keeps it out of the top tier.
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?
Three short lines with the action statement front-loaded and the exception path immediately after. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.
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?
The confirmation-flow behavior is well covered, but for a tool with zero schema description coverage and no output schema, the description leaves the caller guessing on 'database' selection and 'max_rows' truncation behavior — the one real gap in an otherwise tidy definition.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0% for three parameters, the description is the only place semantics could be supplied, and it mentions none of them. It never tells the agent how to use 'sql', what 'database' selects or defaults to, or what 'max_rows' (default 1000) bounds.
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?
States a specific verb ('Run') plus scope ('read-only statement') and locates it in a specific app ('SQL Editor'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from sql_editor_execute by declaring the read-only boundary, so an agent can route 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?
Clear usage context: read-only statements go here, and mutating statements are diverted to sql_editor_execute via the app's confirmation flow. It does not address when to prefer this over the many other query-running siblings (run_sql, sql_editor, query_grid), so it stops short of full alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.