Skip to main content
Glama

Jithox EU business checks

file_to_data_transform

Read-onlyIdempotent

Step 2: carry out EXACTLY the mapping you send (normally the proposal of file_to_data_inspect, corrected). Returns the rows as JSON, the same as CSV text, an error report per row (JSON and CSV), counts, and fileSha256, mappingSha256 and resultSha256 — the same file and mapping always give the same result, so a lost call is simply repeated and compared. It never corrects silently: leading zeros and long ids stay as written, a number is read only under the mapping's decimal mark, an ambiguous date stays unconverted with an issue, a missing value stays null. Large results are paged (offset / limit / page.nextOffset). Free, no account, nothing is stored; over a limit is a refusal that names the limit, never a partial result.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoRows in this page. Default 100; an answer never carries more than about 400 kB of rows, so a page may be shorter than asked.
sheetNoXLSX only: the sheet's name exactly as written, or its position starting at 0. Default: the first sheet.
offsetNoFirst row of the page, starting at 0. Use page.nextOffset of the previous answer.
contentNoThe file's TEXT, for CSV / delimited text / JSON / NDJSON. Give this OR contentBase64. At most 3 MiB.
mappingYesTHE EXPLICIT MAPPING to carry out — normally `proposedMapping` from file_to_data_inspect, corrected where needed: { "targetSchemaId" | "targetSchema", "fields": [{ "target", "source", "sourceIndex"?, "decimalMark"?: "." | ",", "dateFormat"?: "YMD" | "DMY" | "MDY" | "excel_serial" }] }. A number is read ONLY under decimalMark, a date ONLY under dateFormat.
fileNameNoThe file's name, e.g. "prices.csv". Only its extension is used (.csv .tsv .txt .xlsx .xlsm .json .ndjson); it is never stored or logged.
headerRowNoThe row number of the header row, counted from 1. Default: the first row that holds anything.
targetSchemaNoYour own target schema: { "id"?, "title"?, "fields": [{ "name", "type", "required"?, "description"?, "synonyms"? }] } with type one of string, identifier, integer, decimal, date, boolean, email.
contentBase64NoThe file's BYTES, base64-encoded — required for .xlsx, fine for any format. Give this OR content. At most 3 MiB of file.
targetSchemaIdNoA built-in target schema: supplier_price_list, customer_import or order_lines. Give this OR targetSchema.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With annotations for readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and destructive already present, the description still adds substantial behavioral detail: exact non-silent-correction rules, deterministic result hashes, paging via page.nextOffset, privacy guarantees, and refusal behavior over limits. This far exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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 dense but well-organized: it front-loads the core purpose, then covers outputs, determinism, data-handling rules, pagination, and limits/refusal behavior. Every clause carries operational value, and nothing feels redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 complex 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what is returned, how errors are reported, how pagination works, how results are reproducible via hashes, what happens on limits, and that no data is stored. An agent has enough context to call and interpret the result 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces mapping semantics ('never corrects silently', 'leading zeros stay as written') and mentions paging behavior tied to offset/limit, but it does not materially add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's already-detailed property 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'carry out EXACTLY the mapping you send' and explicitly positions itself as 'Step 2' after file_to_data_inspect. It also enumerates the exact outputs (rows as JSON/CSV, per-row error report, counts, hashes), so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools without opening the 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?

The description gives an explicit workflow: use this after file_to_data_inspect, normally with its corrected proposal. It also states when results are paged and when a request is refused, giving clear operational context and enough distinction from file_to_data_inspect.

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.