Skip to main content
Glama

Scalix Cloud

by world.scalix

scalix_db_query

Destructive

Execute a SQL query against the project database. Returns columns, rows, row count, and cost breakdown. Destructive statements (DROP/TRUNCATE/bulk DELETE) require a two-step confirmation: the first call returns code CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED with a confirmation_token — re-call with that value in confirm_token to execute.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sqlYesSQL query to execute
paramsNoBind parameters for the query
confirm_tokenNoConfirmation token from a prior CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED response; required to execute destructive SQL (single-use, short TTL)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirm_token
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Confirmation token from a prior CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED response; required to execute destructive SQL (single-use, short TTL)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral trait: destructive statements require a two-step confirmation with CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED and a confirm_token. It also explains the return contents (columns, rows, row count, cost breakdown), going well beyond the annotations that simply mark the tool as destructive.

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 only two sentences, with the main action stated upfront and the important confirmation mechanism explained succinctly. Every sentence adds value, with no repetition or filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description clearly states what will be returned (columns, rows, row count, cost breakdown) and covers the essential confirmation flow for destructive queries. It provides enough context for an agent to know when and how to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

All three parameters (sql, params, confirm_token) are described in the input schema, achieving 100% coverage. The description reinforces the confirm_token usage by explaining the confirmation flow, but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 begins with a clear, specific action: 'Execute a SQL query against the project database.' It also describes the return values, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like scalix_db_schema or scalix_db_migrate that serve specialized, non-query purposes.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose ('Execute a SQL query') and even shows how to handle destructive statements with confirmation. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous for a general-purpose SQL tool.

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

All Scalix Cloud toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by service prefix and generally target distinct resources/actions. A few execution surfaces could be confused (sandbox_run vs computer_exec vs fn_invoke; build_create vs fn_deploy vs run_deploy), and storage_list is overloaded for both buckets and objects, but descriptions clarify the boundaries well.

Naming Consistency4/5

The scalix_ prefix plus snake_case is used throughout, and most tools follow <service>_<verb>_<noun>. Minor deviations like scalix_search, scalix_status, and scalix_usage omit a service-domain qualifier, but the overall pattern is predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count2/5

53 tools is a very large surface. While the server covers a broad multi-service cloud platform, the count falls well beyond the 25+ threshold and will likely feel overwhelming; many service areas could reasonably be split into separate servers or trimmed.

Completeness2/5

Several service lifecycles have obvious gaps: the KV store has get/list/set but no delete, storage has upload/download/list but no delete for objects or buckets, functions have deploy/list/invoke but no delete/update, and cron has create but no list/delete. These missing operations create dead ends for agents managing common resources.

Resources