db-mcp-tool
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| !pgD | – |
| !mysqlD | – |
| !firestoreD | – |
| !tablesD | – |
| !triggersD | – |
| !functionsD | – |
| !queryD | – |
| !export-dbD | – |
| !export-dataD | – |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
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.