PreSQL
Related Servers
Alternatives to PreSQL
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnforces safety and governance for SQL queries executed by AI agents, providing read-only enforcement, cost estimation, and audit trails.Apache 2.0
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents to inspect schemas, analyze performance, check security, and troubleshoot SQL Server 2019+ databases through a safe, controlled interface.-
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI agents to query Trino and Apache Pinot lakehouses under enforced governance, where every SQL statement is AST-validated, table-allowlisted, priced from the engine's own plan before it runs, and blocked or admitted against scan-byte and intermediate-row budgets. It also grounds agents with schema discovery tools, returns verified results with warnings instead of misleading answers, and records every tool call on an audit trail.3Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceValidates SQL queries via AST parsing, ensuring they are single read-only SELECTs on allowed tables with enforced LIMITs, and masks PII columns based on user roles. Provides a tamper-evident audit log and runs fully offline.1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to safely query PostgreSQL by intercepting and auditing every generated SQL statement before it reaches the database, blocking destructive commands like DROP/TRUNCATE, unbounded DELETE/UPDATE statements, stacked queries, and SQL injection probes. It exposes tools for validating query safety and enforcing a strict read-only (SELECT/EXPLAIN) policy.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables analytics agents to run validated read-only SQL against a warehouse API with enforced row limits, required JSON responses, and secret-safe audit metadata.MIT
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
validate_sql and guard_query overlap heavily: both return a safety verdict (safe/review/blocked vs allow/review/block) with reasons, differing mainly in framing. explain_sql is clearly distinct (no judgment), but an agent could easily struggle to choose between validate and guard.
All three tools follow a clean verb_noun snake_case pattern (validate_sql, explain_sql, guard_query) with no mixing of conventions.
Three tools is well-scoped for a focused SQL safety server, though the overlap between validate_sql and guard_query makes one of them feel somewhat redundant rather than each earning a distinct place.
The domain (pre-execution SQL validation and understanding) is largely covered: validate, explain, and guard. Coverage is adequate, though the surface is thin and could benefit from e.g. schema-aware fix application or batch validation.