Skip to main content
Glama

explore_data_coverage

Answer a question about WHAT THE PLATFORM COVERS — how many symbols a dataset holds, broken down any way you like.

===> THE TOOL for coverage COUNTS and BREAKDOWNS: "how many symbols are covered in
the investor relations dataset?", "what's that count by sector — how many tech
names?", "how many companies have earnings transcripts / 13F ownership / insider
activity / analyst estimates?", "how far back does the fundamentals history go?",
"what's your UK coverage by sector?". It plans queries over BOTH the catalogue's
own metadata and the datasets themselves, so it can count what no enumeration
endpoint knows: which symbols actually carry a PARTICULAR dataset, grouped by
sector, industry, country, market cap, or year.

PUBLIC at the backend — no account, plan, or entitlement is needed to answer a
coverage question, by design: a prospect evaluating the platform should be able to
ask what it covers. (The MCP connection itself still carries the client's OAuth
session — that gate is transport-wide, not this tool's.) Never treat a coverage
question as plan-gated or quota-gated, and never tell the user it needs an upgrade.

Pick between the three coverage-adjacent routes by what the answer looks like:
  - a LIST of what exists ("which sectors / indicators are available?", "is X
    covered?") -> `list_options`. Instant, no async job.
  - a COUNT or breakdown of coverage -> THIS tool.
  - the DATA itself (values, history, trends, comparisons) ->
    `explore_data_catalogue`.
Do NOT answer a coverage count from memory, from the "2,900+ companies / ~420
indices" headline figures, or by eyeballing the length of a `list_options`
payload — those are universe-wide totals and say nothing about per-dataset
coverage. Run this tool.

There is no `delivery` argument: results always go to the dashboard so the user can
interact with them. Rate-limited to 20/hour server-side.

Asynchronous: returns {"task_id": "...", "status": "PENDING"}. Poll a SINGLE task
with `get_task_status` until SUCCESS (the result is a plain dict — there is NO
nested task to chase). Expect roughly 1-5 minutes depending on the tables queried —
a task still PENDING after a couple of minutes is normal, so keep polling. On
SUCCESS, `result` is:
  {"user_query": "...", "delivery": "dashboard",
   "results": {"<query name>": {"description": "...", "columns": [...],
                                 "rows": [...the FULL result set...],
                                 "row_count": N}, ...}}
`rows` is NOT sampled or truncated — every bucket of a breakdown comes back
(`row_count` matches len(rows)), so the totals you report are the real ones.
Render each entry as a chart/table for the user. If the request can't be served
from the platform's data, `result` instead carries a `validation_status` of
"REJECTED" (with a reason) — relay that rather than retrying blindly.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesThe coverage question in natural language, as asked — e.g. "count the distinct symbols in the investor relations dataset, broken out by sector".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queueNoWorker queue the job was routed to.
statusYesPENDING on dispatch.
task_idYesPoll this with get_task_status until SUCCESS.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Without leaning on the thin annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that the backend is public and not plan/quota-gated, that there is a 20/hour server-side rate limit, that execution is asynchronous returning a task_id polled via get_task_status, the 1-5 minute latency profile, and that rows are not sampled or truncated. It even covers the REJECTED validation_status failure path — far beyond what annotations convey.

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?

It is long, but front-loaded and information-dense: routing rule first, then gating, then async contract and result shape. A few clauses repeat the coverage-counting idea, costing some tightness, yet nearly every sentence carries operational value an agent needs.

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?

For a single-parameter async tool it covers everything an agent needs: routing, entitlement expectations, polling loop, timing tolerance, success and rejection result shapes, and rendering instructions. An output schema exists, so the embedded result description is a bonus rather than a necessity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% for the single `query` parameter, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by specifying the query should be the coverage question in natural language as asked, and by explicitly stating that no `delivery` argument exists and why. That last point resolves an ambiguity the schema alone leaves open.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Answer a question about WHAT THE PLATFORM COVERS') and immediately narrows the scope to counts and breakdowns of coverage, contrasted explicitly against list_options and explore_data_catalogue. An agent can distinguish it from every coverage-adjacent sibling without opening a schema.

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?

It gives an explicit three-way routing rule keyed on the shape of the expected answer (list -> list_options, count/breakdown -> this tool, actual data -> explore_data_catalogue), plus a negative instruction not to answer from memory or from headline universe totals. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both stated.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources