ignition-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

db_query

Execute SQL queries on Ignition databases, with read-only SELECTs and other statements requiring confirmation for safety.

Instructions

Bridge plane. SELECT statements run read-only; any other statement is mutating.

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": "db_query"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sql`	Yes
`args`	No
`confirm`	No
`database`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that SELECT is read-only and other statements are mutating, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, error behavior, or the role of the 'confirm' parameter. The output schema is not described, leaving agent uncertain about return values.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short (two sentences), but the first sentence 'Bridge plane.' is cryptic and uninformative. It could be more concise or better structured to front-load key information like the tool's action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 4 parameters, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the confirm parameter (safety mechanism), the database parameter (scope), or the args parameter (parameterized queries). The output schema exists but is not summarized, leaving agents uninformed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation for any of the four parameters (sql, args, confirm, database). The agent gains no additional meaning beyond the bare field names and types.

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 explicitly states that SELECT statements are read-only and other statements are mutating, clarifying that it executes SQL queries. The phrase 'Bridge plane' is obscure but does not undermine the core purpose. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'db_run_named_query' which runs named queries.

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 that for read-only operations, SELECT should be used, and for mutations, other statements are allowed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'db_run_named_query' or provide any usage context or prerequisites.

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