Get the Builder spec schema reference. Returns chart_type enum, required/optional fields per type, palette options, axis-override shape, annotation format, and concrete examples. Call this ONCE at session-start; the spec it returns is the input shape for create_chart_from_spec. Cheaper and clearer than guessing Plotly JSON syntax.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by explaining that the tool returns a schema reference, is cheap, and serves as input for create_chart_from_spec. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, each providing essential information: what it returns and when/how to use it. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, usage, and relationship to create_chart_from_spec. It is complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for no parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the Builder spec schema reference, listing specific contents (chart_type enum, fields, palette, etc.). It distinguishes itself from create_chart_from_spec by noting the output is input for that tool and is cheaper than guessing Plotly JSON.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises calling the tool ONCE at session-start and contrasts it with guessing syntax. It provides clear context for when to use, though it does not list alternative tools for obtaining chart specifications.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are strongly domain-specific with clear boundaries, especially the 360 reports and dataset/chart CRUD tools. Some overlap exists around driver analysis (find_drivers, what_matters, decompose_drivers) and dataset discovery (search_datasets, discover_by_topic, list_indicators), but the descriptions make the intended use cases mostly distinguishable.
The vast majority of tools follow a clear snake_case verb_noun or get_noun pattern, e.g. list_connectors, refresh_connector, query_dataset, delete_dataset. Minor deviations such as calculate, describe, bubble_or_not, what_matters, and the 360-style report names keep it from being perfectly uniform.
48 tools is far beyond the 3-15 range and even beyond the 25-tool threshold for a heavy surface. The platform is broad and the tools are organized into domains, but the sheer number creates a high selection burden for an agent and suggests the server is trying to cover too many workflows in one toolset.
The toolset covers dataset lifecycle, chart lifecycle, data discovery, querying, statistics, app context, connectors, and admin reports remarkably well. Notable gaps are the lack of a delete_chart tool and no row-level update/delete for datasets, but agents can generally work around these or treat them as intentional platform constraints.
