Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Redash MCP Server

Redash MCP Server

by suthio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

execute_adhoc_query

Run ad-hoc SQL queries without saving to Redash. Specify query and data source ID; results are returned and the query is automatically deleted.

Instructions

Execute an ad-hoc query without saving it to Redash. Creates a temporary query that is automatically deleted after execution.

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": {
      "query": "<query>",
      "dataSourceId": "<dataSourceId>"
    },
    "name": "execute_adhoc_query"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSQL query to execute
dataSourceIdYesID of the data source to query against

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.13

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the temporary and auto-deletion behavior, but omits details like whether the tool can run destructive SQL, required permissions, or error handling. The disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, no wasted words, and front-loads the core purpose. It is perfectly concise for the information it conveys.

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 and lack of output schema, the description lacks details about the return value (e.g., query results format). It is sufficient to differentiate from siblings but misses potentially useful information for an agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (query and dataSourceId). The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline.

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 it executes an ad-hoc query without saving, and explicitly mentions it creates a temporary query that is automatically deleted. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like execute_query which likely saves the query.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description tells when to use this tool (for ad-hoc queries without persisting), but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like execute_query for saved queries. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools