Skip to main content
Glama
neverinfamous

db-mcp

by neverinfamous
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v2.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing adapters, checking health, and getting server info. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All names use snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: list_adapters uses verb_noun, while server_health and server_info are noun phrases. This is a minor inconsistency.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 3 tools, the server is tightly scoped for its purpose, providing essential operations without unnecessary bloat.

    Completeness2/5

    The server covers listing adapters and checking health, but lacks core CRUD operations for adapters (e.g., register, unregister) and any database querying tools, leaving major gaps for a database MCP server.

  • Average 3.8/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 13 of 13 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is failing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

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

    Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the fact that it lists adapters. It does not contradict annotations.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the essential information efficiently.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    For a simple parameterless tool, the description is adequate but lacks detail on what the output contains (e.g., adapter names, configurations). Absence of output schema increases the need for such detail.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    With no parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional parameter information, meeting the baseline expectation.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description 'List all registered database adapters' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('registered database adapters'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like server_health and server_info which cover different aspects.

    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 when to use the tool (to see registered adapters) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, which is acceptable given the distinct sibling tools.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    Annotations already disclose readonly and non-destructive nature. The description adds minimal behavioral context (returns information about server and adapters) but does not elaborate on specifics like response format or potential errors.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    A single, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    For a zero-parameter tool with annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it lacks detail on the structure of returned information, leaving the agent partially uninformed.

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

    Parameters4/5

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

    No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%, so the description is not required to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 is appropriate.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool retrieves information about the db-mcp server and registered adapters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_adapters and server_health.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    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 its siblings, leaving the agent to infer context without explicit differentiation.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it checks all database connections but lacks details on what 'health' entails or response format, providing minimal extra context.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    Single sentence, front-loaded with key information, no extraneous words.

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

    Completeness4/5

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

    While simple, the tool has no output schema and no parameters, so the description adequately covers the intended use. However, it could elaborate on what 'health status' means (e.g., response structure) to improve completeness.

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

    Parameters4/5

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

    No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description is not required to elaborate on parameters, achieving the baseline score for zero-parameter tools.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description uses a specific verb 'Check' and resource 'health status of all database connections', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools 'list_adapters' and 'server_info'.

    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 when to use (when health of database connections is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

db-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

db-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/neverinfamous/db-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server