TursoがホストするLibSQLデータベースへのアクセスを提供するモデルコンテキストプロトコル（MCP）サーバー。現在、このサーバーは以下の機能を提供しています。
データベース内のテーブルのリストを取得する
データベースのスキーマの取得
テーブルのスキーマを取得する
SELECTクエリの実行
これをclaude_desktop_config.jsonに追加します:
{
"mcpServers": [
"turso": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "mcp-turso"],
"env": {
"TURSO_DATABASE_URL": "your_url",
"TURSO_AUTH_TOKEN": "your_token"
}
}
]
}続行するには既存のデータベースが必要です。データベースがない場合は作成してください。Turso CLI 経由でデータベース URL を取得するには、次のコマンドを実行します。
turso db show --url <database-name>次に、データベース認証トークンを取得します。
turso db tokens create <database-name>上記のように、これらの値を構成に追加します。
Cursor を使用して Turso MCP サーバーを構成するには、Cursor 設定に以下を追加します。
カーソルを開き、設定 (⚙️) > 設定 (JSON) に移動します。
設定 JSON に次の構成を追加します。
"mcpServers": {
"turso": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "mcp-turso"],
"env": {
"TURSO_DATABASE_URL": "your_url",
"TURSO_AUTH_TOKEN": "your_token"
}
}
}前のセクションで説明したように、 your_urlとyour_tokenを Turso データベースの URL と認証トークンに置き換えます。
サーバーには、Claude Desktop 外部でのデバッグ用にカスタムロガーが含まれています。デフォルトでは、このロガーは<parent-dir>/logs/mcp-turso.logに書き込みます。ここで、 <parent-dir>はmcp-tursoスクリプトを含むディレクトリの親ディレクトリです。つまり、 mcp-tursoへのパスが~/foo/bin/mcp-tursoの場合、ログは~/foo/logs/mcp-turso.logに書き込まれます。上記のように NPX で実行している場合、デフォルトのログは次のようになります。
~/.npm/_npx/<npx-dir-name>/node_modules/mcp-turso/logs/mcp-turso.logカスタム パスを指定する場合は、サーバーの構成に絶対 POSIX パスを含む--logsフラグを含めることができます。
{
"mcpServers": [
"turso": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "mcp-turso", "--logs", "/Users/<username>/path/to/dir/mcp-logs.log"],
"env": {
"TURSO_DATABASE_URL": "your_url",
"TURSO_AUTH_TOKEN": "your_token"
}
}
]
}ログファイルへのパス（デフォルトまたはカスタム）は、サーバー作成時に常にstderrに記録されます。Claudeデスクトップ版の場合、これは~/Library/Logs/Claude内のサーバーログに表示されます。
注: 現時点では、Windows 用のカスタム ログ ファイルの指定は実装されていませんが、今後実装される予定です。
Related MCP server: Supabase MCP Server
サーバーは次のツールを提供します。
list_tables
データベース内のすべてのテーブルのリストを取得する
入力なし
戻り値: テーブル名の配列
get_db_schema
データベース内のすべてのテーブルのスキーマを取得する
入力なし
戻り値: SQL作成ステートメントの配列
describe_table
特定のテーブルのスキーマ情報を表示する
入力：
table_name (文字列): 記述するテーブルの名前
戻り値: 名前と型を持つ列定義の配列
query_database
SELECTクエリを実行してデータベースからデータを読み取ります
入力：
sql (文字列): 実行するSELECT SQLクエリ
戻り値: クエリ結果{ columns: string[]; rows: Record<string, unknown>[]; rowCount: number; }型のオブジェクトとして返します。
[ ] Windowsでカスタムログファイルを指定する機能を追加
[ ] クエリツールを追加する
MIT ライセンス - 詳細についてはLICENSEファイルを参照してください。
View schema information for a specific table
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table_name | Yes | Name of the table to describe |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('View'), but does not specify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'schema information' entails (e.g., columns, types, constraints). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with mutation potential.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for conciseness.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'schema information' includes or the return format, which is crucial for a tool that likely provides structured data. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'table_name' well-documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('View') and resource ('schema information for a specific table'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_db_schema' or 'list_tables', which might also provide schema-related information, so it misses the highest score.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_db_schema' or 'list_tables'. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios, leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the schema for all tables in the database
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or potential side effects. For a tool that likely returns structured data, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.
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?
Given the complexity (a tool that likely returns database metadata), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the schema includes (e.g., table names, columns, types) or the return format, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it effectively.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it could have mentioned if any implicit parameters (e.g., database connection) are assumed. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('schema for all tables in the database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'describe_table' or 'list_tables', which might provide similar or overlapping functionality.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'describe_table' or 'list_tables'. The description implies a broad scope ('all tables'), but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual recommendations for choosing this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all tables in the database
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists tables but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether it returns metadata, pagination behavior, performance characteristics, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with a database.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no space, making it ideal for quick comprehension.
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 database tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what information is returned about each table, whether there are any constraints or limitations, or how this differs from sibling tools. The agent would need to guess about important operational details.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the input requirements. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information beyond what's already covered, earning a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('all tables in the database'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'describe_table' or 'get_db_schema', which prevents a perfect score.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_db_schema' or 'describe_table'. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Execute a SELECT query to read data from the database
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sql | Yes | SQL query to execute |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is for 'read data' operations, which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't clarify important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or result format. The description is too minimal to provide adequate transparency for a database query tool.
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?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and uses precise technical language ('SELECT query', 'read data'). Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement.
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 database query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address critical context like what happens with invalid SQL, whether transactions are supported, what the return format looks like, or any performance considerations. The description covers only the most basic purpose without addressing the operational complexity of database interactions.
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?
The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). The schema fully documents the single 'sql' parameter with its type and constraints. The description doesn't provide additional context about SQL syntax requirements, supported SQL features, or query limitations. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is complete.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Execute a SELECT query') and resource ('read data from the database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'describe_table' or 'list_tables' by focusing on query execution rather than metadata retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what type of database or data is involved, which prevents a perfect score.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_db_schema' or 'describe_table'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing valid SQL syntax) or constraints (e.g., read-only queries only). While the description implies usage for reading data, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0describe_table3 fields changedInput schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / table_name / descriptionAdded value: +"Name of the table to describe"get_db_schema2 fields changedInput schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falselist_tables2 fields changedInput schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsequery_database3 fields changedInput schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / sql / descriptionAdded value: +"SQL query to execute"describe_tableget_db_schemalist_tablesquery_databaseScored across 4 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: describe_table focuses on a single table's schema, get_db_schema covers all tables' schemas, list_tables simply enumerates table names, and query_database handles data retrieval. An agent can easily differentiate these based on their specific scopes.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (describe_table, get_db_schema, list_tables, query_database) with clear, descriptive names. The naming is uniform and predictable, making it easy for agents to understand the action and target.
With 4 tools, this server is well-scoped for database interaction, covering essential operations like schema inspection, table listing, and data querying. Each tool earns its place without feeling excessive or insufficient for the domain.
The tools provide solid coverage for read-only database operations, including schema exploration and data querying. However, there are minor gaps for a full database management scope, such as lacking write operations (e.g., insert, update, delete) or administrative functions, which agents might need to work around.
Text-to-SQL MCP server: read-only queries on PostgreSQL, MySQL and SQL Server with your real schema
Query 40 databases from Claude, ChatGPT, or Cursor — on any device. Read-only, encrypted, audited.
Query Postgres, MySQL, SQL Server, Oracle, BigQuery, ClickHouse and Redshift from your AI client.
Query your Postgres from ChatGPT or Claude without exposing the database or handing over credentials. Run npx boltschema connect next to your database and it dials out over HTTPS — no inbound firewall rule, no open port, works with localhost and VPC-private databases. Read-only is enforced by a SQL guard, a Postgres READ ONLY transaction, and a scoped role generated for you.
