Skip to main content
Glama
andreadecorte

GABI MCP Server

by andreadecorte
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

MCP server exposing gabi.

This allows running queries against the target.

You will need to set the GABI endpoint and the relevant access token, to be passed as environment variables.

Claude Desktop config

Running with Podman or Docker

Replace ENDPOINT and REDACTED with your values

{
    "mcpServers": {
        "gabi": {
          "command": "podman",
          "args": [
            "run",
            "-i",
            "--rm",
            "-e", "ACCESS_TOKEN",
            "-e", "GABI_ENDPOINT",
            "quay.io/adecorte/gabi-mcp:0.1.1"
          ],
          "env": {
            "ACCESS_TOKEN": "REDACTED",
            "GABI_ENDPOINT": "ENDPOINT"
          }
      }
    }
}

Related MCP server: SentinelScan Cloud MCP Server

Running directly with uv

{
    "mcpServers": {
        "gabi": {
            "command": "$PATH/uv",
            "args": [
                "--directory",
                "$YOURPATH/gabi-mcp",
                "run",
                "gabi.py"
            ]
        }
    }
}

Available Tools

2 tools
get_db_nameC

Get the name of the current database.

Args:

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise with a single clear sentence, but the 'Args:' section is empty and adds no value, creating unnecessary structure. The core description is efficient, but the formatting could be cleaner.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the basic purpose but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like return format, error conditions, or usage context relative to the sibling tool. For a tool with no structured metadata, more detail is needed.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('name of the current database'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'get_query_result', which appears to serve a different function (querying vs. metadata retrieval).

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 or in what context it's appropriate. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'get_query_result' or any other tools, leaving the agent without usage context.

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

get_query_resultC

Executes an SQL query on a single line against the current database.

Args: query

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
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. It states the tool executes SQL queries, implying it's a read/write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only or destructive, what permissions are required, rate limits, or what happens on errors. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is appropriately sized with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second lists the parameter. There's no wasted text, and it's front-loaded with the main action. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter info more seamlessly.

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 executing SQL queries (which can be read/write operations), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, error handling, and usage context. This is inadequate for a tool that interacts with a database.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'Args: query' and mentions 'SQL query on a single line', which provides some semantic meaning (e.g., single-line constraint) beyond the schema's basic type information. However, it doesn't fully explain the parameter's format, valid SQL syntax, or constraints, leaving significant gaps.

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 tool's purpose: 'Executes an SQL query on a single line against the current database.' This specifies the verb ('executes'), resource ('SQL query'), and scope ('current database'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_db_name', but the purpose is clear and specific.

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 mentions 'current database' but doesn't explain what that means or how it relates to the sibling tool 'get_db_name'. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites for usage.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 2 tool updates
    • First observedget_db_name
    • First observedget_query_result
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one retrieves the database name, while the other executes SQL queries. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, making it clear which tool to use for each task.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get_' prefixes (get_db_name and get_query_result). This naming convention is uniform and predictable across the tool set.

Tool Count2/5

With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a database interaction domain. It lacks essential operations like create, update, or delete queries, making it insufficient for typical database workflows. The count is too low for the apparent scope.

Completeness2/5

The tool set is severely incomplete for database operations. It only allows retrieving the database name and executing queries, missing critical CRUD operations (e.g., insert, update, delete) and other common functions like listing tables or managing connections. This will cause significant agent failures in handling database tasks.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • SentinelScan Cloud MCP Server

    vndpal
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A remote MCP server that exposes mock application security testing data (applications, scans, issues) for LLM clients to query security posture using natural language.
    -

  • mcp-sparql

    daedalus
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    MCP server exposing SPARQL query functionalities for LLMs, enabling query execution, validation, and graph exploration across SPARQL endpoints.
    7
    MIT

  • AccelMCP

    t-ogawa-dev
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    An MCP server with HTTP/stdio support, a web admin panel for managing services, capabilities, and user permissions with Bearer token authentication, enabling relay and access control for MCP tools.
    -