ThinAir Data

impact_analysis

Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyze the blast radius of a proposed schema change: FK dependencies, affected views, row count, risk score. [ARCHITECT tier]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`intent`	Yes	Describe the change: 'rename vehicle_id to vehicle_uuid on trips', 'drop column X'
`connection`	No	Target connection name from this tenant's inventory. Call `list_connections` to see every name + dialect, then match semantically to the user's intent (e.g. 'analytics' → a connection named `-analytics-`; 'prod' → a connection with `prod-` prefix). If the user didn't specify, use the tenant's default (first added). Do not invent names — resolve from `list_connections` output.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`meta`	No
`display`	No
`summary`	No
`insights`	No

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds the ARCHITECT tier access restriction and clarifies that the analysis is for a proposed change, not an applied one. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single sentence with a front-loaded verb and a concise list of outputs. The tier marker is extra but valuable. Every word earns its place, with zero fluff.

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?

Given a full parameter schema, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description completes the picture by stating the analysis scope and access tier. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, including guidance on resolving the 'connection' parameter via list_connections. The tool description does not add parameter semantics, but it is not needed because the schema fully handles it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('blast radius of a proposed schema change'), and enumerates concrete outputs (FK dependencies, affected views, row count, risk score). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like describe_schema, analyze_table, and generate_migration.

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 phrase 'proposed schema change' clearly implies use during planning before a change is applied. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to guide an agent.

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

All ThinAir Data tools Inspect

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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource/action, though some overlap exists between analyze_table and data_profile (both profile tables) and between pii_scan and configure_allowlist (both deal with PII). Clear descriptions and separation of quick vs. full analysis mitigate confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow verb_noun (add_connection, describe_schema, generate_migration), but a notable minority use noun phrases (data_profile, pii_scan, query_firewall, saved_queries, quota, impact_analysis). This mixed convention creates inconsistency, though the naming is still readable.

Tool Count3/5

26 tools is slightly over the 16-25 heavy threshold, but each tool addresses a distinct need across connection management, querying, analysis, security, and performance. While the count feels high, the breadth justifies it; however, it's approaching the 'too many' range.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle: connections (add/remove/list/test), querying (query_sql, saved_queries, cross_db_query), schema exploration/migration (describe_schema, generate_migration, impact_analysis), data quality/compliance (analyze_table, data_profile, pii_scan), performance (explain_query, optimize_query, show_locks), and monitoring (watch_table, detect_anomalies). Any gaps are minor, such as no update_connection, but that's not a core need.

Resources

Need Help?