Query SQLite databases inside forensic disk images with read-only SELECT statements to inspect tables, extract records, and gather evidence.
Run a read-only SELECT against a SQLite database inside the image.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | ||
| sql | No | ||
| part | No | ||
| image | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| local_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait: the operation is read-only ('read-only SELECT'), so an agent knows it will not mutate the database. However, it says nothing about the implicit limit (default 200), error behavior on non-SELECT statements, or permissions.
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?
A single tight sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure efficiency.
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 tool with six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is thin: it omits how the target database is located (ref/part/image/local_path), the row-limit behavior, and error semantics. It is not complete enough to invoke confidently without inspecting the schema.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and no parameters are explained. 'Inside the image' loosely hints at the `image` parameter and 'SELECT' maps to `sql`, but ref, part, limit, and local_path — the ambiguous ones governing which database is targeted — are left entirely undocumented.
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) and resource (a read-only SELECT against a SQLite database inside the image), which is enough to distinguish it from the listing-oriented sibling sqlite_tables. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly or scoping the query targets, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.
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?
The phrase 'read-only SELECT' implies the tool is for retrieving rows, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to alternatives such as sqlite_tables for schema discovery. An agent must infer the workflow entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.