Skip to main content
Glama
seek-your-way-out

Cloudflare D1 Database MCP Server

by seek-your-way-out
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one lists tables (metadata operation) and the other executes SQL queries (data operation). There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions, making it impossible for an agent to confuse them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent 'd1_verb_noun' naming pattern with clear, descriptive names. The prefix 'd1_' identifies the domain, and the verb-noun structure (list_tables, query) is uniformly applied across all tools.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, this server feels severely under-scoped for a database management system. While the tools cover basic operations, typical database interfaces require more functionality (e.g., create/delete tables, schema management, transaction support) to be practically useful for agents.

    Completeness2/5

    The toolset is significantly incomplete for database operations. While listing tables and running queries are foundational, there are major gaps: no table creation/deletion, no schema modification, no transaction control, and no specialized query helpers. This will cause agent failures for common database workflows.

  • Average 3.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • 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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool runs SQL queries but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only or can perform mutations, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a database query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

    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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

    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?

    Given the complexity of a database query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., read/write permissions, safety), output structure, or error conditions. This leaves the agent under-informed for effective tool invocation.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('sql' and 'bindings') adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as SQL dialect constraints or binding usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

    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?

    The description clearly states the action ('Run a SQL query') and target resource ('configured Cloudflare D1 database'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'd1_list_tables' by focusing on query execution rather than metadata listing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling, so it's not a perfect 5.

    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 alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'd1_list_tables' or any other potential tools, nor does it specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not describe traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

    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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundant information. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

    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?

    Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It covers the basic action but does not provide context on behavioral traits or output, which could be important for an agent to use it effectively in a broader workflow.

    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?

    The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description does not need to add parameter details, so it appropriately avoids redundancy. A baseline score of 4 is given as it efficiently handles the lack of parameters without unnecessary information.

    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?

    The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('tables available in the Cloudflare D1 database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'd1_query', which might also involve table operations, so it falls short of 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.

    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 alternatives, such as the sibling 'd1_query'. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and description.

    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

cloudflare-sywo-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

cloudflare-sywo-mcp-server 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/seek-your-way-out/cloudflare-sywo-mcp-server'

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