Skip to main content
Glama
techybolek

MCP MS SQL Server

by techybolek
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: listing tables, describing a table's schema, and executing arbitrary SQL queries. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: list_tables, describe_table, execute_sql_query. No deviations.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools is minimal but well-scoped for a simple database interface covering exploration and querying. It avoids unnecessary complexity.

    Completeness3/5

    The set lacks explicit tools for DDL (create/alter/drop), DML (insert/update/delete), or transaction control, but the execute_sql_query tool can compensate. Notable gaps exist but are workable.

  • Average 3.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.

    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?

    Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'execute', which implies both read and write operations, but does not mention side effects, transaction safety, error behavior, or permissions. This is insufficient for a powerful SQL execution tool.

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

    Conciseness3/5

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

    The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words, but it is overly terse for a tool that executes arbitrary SQL. It could include essential context without being verbose, so it is acceptable but not excellent.

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

    Completeness1/5

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

    Given the complexity of SQL execution (potential for data modification, no output schema, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error handling, query types allowed, and safety considerations.

    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 provides descriptions for both parameters (query and parameters), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

    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 'Execute' and the resource 'SQL query against the MS SQL Server database', making the purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like describe_table or list_tables, but the action is fundamentally different so no explicit differentiation is critical.

    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?

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any caution about using SQL queries that modify data. The description lacks any contextual advice that would help an agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

    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?

    With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It states 'Get schema information' but omits details on what that includes (e.g., columns, types, constraints), required permissions, or side effects. Read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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

    Conciseness3/5

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

    The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It could be considered under-specified, but it avoids verbosity.

    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?

    No output schema is provided, and annotations are absent. The description does not explain the return value (e.g., schema format), leaving a gap in completeness for a tool with a single required parameter.

    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 parameter 'table_name' is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic depth, meeting 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?

    Describes the tool as retrieving schema information for a specific table, with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_tables (which likely only returns table names) and execute_sql_query (which runs arbitrary SQL).

    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?

    No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions or context for typical usage, leaving the agent to infer.

    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?

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('list') but does not mention any performance considerations, permissions, or result format. However, for a simple list tool with no parameters, this is minimally adequate.

    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 sentence that precisely states the action without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It fully describes the tool's function without missing critical aspects.

    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?

    There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it adds no extra param info but is not required.

    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 lists all tables in the database. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('tables'), and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like describe_table (which describes a specific table) and execute_sql_query (which runs queries).

    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 implies usage context (when you need a full list of tables) and sibling names provide additional context. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the use case is clear for a simple list operation.

    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

mcp_sql_server2 MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp_sql_server2 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/techybolek/mcp_sql_server2'

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