A fluent database answer can be impossible to review.
The number looks plausible, but the response contains no source boundary, cutoff, policy version, row limit, or transformation.
When someone asks where it came from, the only evidence is the chat transcript.
An MCP database server needs an evidence envelope that travels with the answer:
- authenticated user, tenant, and role references
- policy decision and tool-contract versions
- normalized operation reference
- source, database role, schema, and observed time
- row and byte counts
- truncation, redaction, cache, and partial-result status
- transformation versions
- operation and trace IDs
- a digest or protected artifact reference where appropriate
This does not mean logging every returned value.
Prefer identifiers, counts, classifications, digests, and access-controlled references. Raw result capture should be exceptional, restricted, and short-lived.
The important test is simple: can an independent reviewer reconstruct the governed path from request to result without reading the chat?
If not, the answer is a confident claim—not reviewable evidence.
Full guide: MCP database server result provenance
Top comments (0)