CSV Analyzer — Analyse a CSV file: row/column count, data types, null counts, min/max/mean per column. [category: analyze]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | Input file (CSV) | |
| strict | No | Files over 10,000 rows are analysed from the first 10,000 only. Switch on to get an error instead of statistics that cover part of the file. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / strictAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "description": "Files over 10,000 rows are analysed from the first 10,000 only. Switch on to get an error instead of statistics that cover part of the file.",
+ "title": "Refuse partial answers",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific statistics computed, which is useful context, but discloses nothing about return format or the 10,000-row sampling behavior (that lives only in the schema).
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?
One compact sentence with the verb and the computed outputs front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The trailing '[category: analyze]' tag adds little selection value and is the only slight noise.
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?
For a simple read-only two-parameter tool with no output schema, enumerating the returned statistics in the description is exactly the right compensation. It is nearly complete, missing only an explicit note that large files are sampled unless 'strict' is set.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both 'file' and 'strict' (including the row-cap behavior) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Analyse a CSV file') and enumerates the concrete outputs it computes (row/column count, data types, null counts, min/max/mean per column), which is unusually informative. It does not, however, differentiate itself from format-sibling tools like analyze_file, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The implicit applicability to CSV files is the only cue, and the '[category: analyze]' tag is metadata rather than routing help.
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.