DataNexus MCP

validate_tool_output

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a DataNexus tool response for data quality issues using two-layer validation: deterministic rules first, then AI review for ambiguous cases. Read-only. Never blocks. tool_id: DataNexus tool identifier e.g. T04, T10, T22. Required. Find in the tool_id field of any response. query_hash: Hash from the response you are validating. Required. Enables feedback correlation. response_json: Full tool response serialised as a JSON string. Required. Returns pass or issues_found, with issues from each layer and whether feedback was auto-filed. Both layers must agree before feedback is filed. Use validate_tool_output to check data quality. Use report_feedback instead to manually report an issue you have already identified. If this tool's response does not serve the user's need, call report_feedback with feedback_type="agent_gap", tool_id="validate_tool_output", intended_query="{what the user needed}", gap_description="{what was missing or wrong in the result}".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tool_id`	Yes	DataNexus tool identifier, e.g. T04, T10, T22 — found in the tool_id field of any response. Required.
`query_hash`	Yes	Hash from the response being validated — found in the query_hash field of any response. Enables feedback correlation. Required.
`response_json`	Yes	The full tool response, serialised as a JSON string, to validate for data quality issues. Required.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive nature. Description adds 'Never blocks' and explains the two-layer agreement condition before feedback is filed, enriching behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Description is slightly verbose but well-structured: starts with core purpose, then parameter details, then usage guidance. Every sentence adds value; minor redundancy could be trimmed.

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 output schema existence, description doesn't need to detail returns but mentions key outputs (pass, issues_found, feedback auto-filed). Covers all aspects: purpose, parameters, usage context, and fallback action.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and description adds inline explanations for each parameter (e.g., where to find tool_id, purpose of query_hash), surpassing the schema's own descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool validates DataNexus tool responses for data quality using two-layer validation. It specifies the verb 'validate' and resource 'DataNexus tool response', differentiating it from siblings like report_feedback.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly instructs when to use this tool versus report_feedback, including a concrete alternative and guidance for handling insufficient responses. Provides clear context for choosing between tools.

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

All DataNexus MCP 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped into clear domain prefixes (compliance, domain, frontend_security, etc.) with distinct purposes. Minor overlap exists between frontend_security_detect_typosquatting and security_detect_typosquatting, but descriptions clarify the different scope.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case. Irregularities like 'fetch' vs 'audit' and two 'detect_typosquatting' tools exist, but overall naming is predictable within domains.

Tool Count3/5

55 tools is high for a single server given the breadth of domains. Some redundancy (e.g., two typosquatting tools) suggests possible trimming, but the count is justified by the wide coverage.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers key operations across domains like compliance, domain, security, legal, and nonprofit. Minor gaps exist, such as limited frontend audit beyond package.json and no general-purpose code scanning.

Resources

Need Help?