Raccoon MCP

Execute SQLite statement

db_execute

Destructive

Execute mutating SQLite SQL statements or parameterized queries against a specified database file to perform inserts, updates, and deletes.

Instructions

Execute mutating SQLite SQL or a parameterized statement.

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": {
      "file": "<file>",
      "sql": "<sql>"
    },
    "name": "db_execute"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sql`	Yes
`file`	Yes
`params`	No
`deviceId`	No
`deviceName`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'mutating' is consistent with them. It adds the parameterized-statement capability but says nothing about transaction semantics, what data can be destroyed, permission requirements, or error behavior for a destructive open-world operation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a five-parameter destructive tool.

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

Completeness2/5

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

A destructive mutation with five undocumented parameters and no output schema warrants more than one clause. Nothing tells the agent which database file is targeted, how params binds, or what a successful execution returns.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% with five parameters, so the description carries the full burden. 'Parameterized statement' hints at the params field but file, deviceId, and deviceName are left entirely undefined in both schema and prose.

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?

States a specific verb (Execute) plus resource (SQLite SQL / parameterized statement), and the word 'mutating' carves out the write side. It does not name the sibling it is distinct from, so an agent must infer the split against db_query_start on its own.

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 word 'mutating' implies this is for writes rather than reads, which is a weak but real usage signal. There is no explicit when/when-not and no reference to db_query_start/db_query_next/db_info as the read-path alternatives.

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

Deploy Server