db-mcp-tool
Related Servers
Alternatives to db-mcp-tool
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server for interacting with MSSQL and PostgreSQL databases, offering tools for schema exploration and SQL execution. It features configurable query modes for safety and supports advanced authentication methods like Windows Auth and SSL.7 npmMIT
- -licenseNot gradedqualityNot gradedmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that provides tools for interacting with databases, including PostgreSQL, DuckDB, and Google Cloud Storage Parquet files.2-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server for PostgreSQL databases that enables AI agents to connect, query, and explore multiple databases with schema discovery and extension context.540MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that provides tools for connecting to and interacting with various database systems (SQLite, PostgreSQL, MySQL/MariaDB, SQL Server) through a unified interface.3-
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables powerful PostgreSQL database management capabilities including analysis, schema management, data migration, and monitoring through natural language interactions.18928 npm200AGPL 3.0
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA multi-database MCP server supporting PostgreSQL, ClickHouse, and MySQL that enables database exploration and SQL execution through MCP stdio or HTTP API.-
TDQS
Scored across 9 tools
The tools are completely indistinguishable due to the lack of descriptions and ambiguous naming. For example, '!export-data' and '!export-db' likely overlap significantly, while '!mysql' and '!pg' might both handle database operations without clear differentiation. Without descriptions, an agent cannot determine the purpose or boundaries of any tool.
The naming is inconsistent with a mix of conventions: some tools use hyphens (e.g., '!export-data'), others are single words (e.g., '!mysql'), and some are abbreviations (e.g., '!pg'). While all start with '!', there is no predictable verb_noun pattern or consistent style, making it hard to infer relationships.
With 9 tools, the count is reasonable for a database-related server, but the lack of descriptions makes it impossible to assess if this number is well-scoped. It could be appropriate if each tool covers a distinct aspect, but currently, it feels borderline due to the ambiguity.
The server appears to target database operations, but without descriptions, it is impossible to assess coverage. Tools like '!query' and '!tables' suggest basic operations, but there are likely significant gaps (e.g., no clear create, update, or delete tools) and no way to determine if the surface supports a complete workflow.