SwishrJobs

Data lineage graph

submit_data_lineage_graph

Idempotent

Derive a table-level lineage graph from a set of create/select statements, with a Mermaid diagram. When a set of SQL models needs a dependency graph. Do not choose this when column-level or runtime lineage is required. Example requests: Build a lineage graph from these SQL files. | What depends on what across these models? | Show the data lineage for these tables.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "inputs": "<inputs>",
      "authorized_by": "<authorized_by>"
    },
    "name": "submit_data_lineage_graph"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`inputs`	Yes
`quote_id`	No	The quote_id returned by POST /v1/jobs. Required to authorize a priced capability; the service rejects a priced job that does not name the quote it issued.
`authorized_by`	Yes	Identifier of the human or agent authorizing this job.
`accepted_price`	No	The amount accepted, exactly as quoted (for example "5.00" or 5). Checked against the stored quote, so a price that moved between quote and authorize is refused rather than silently absorbed. Optional, but sent to make the acceptance explicit.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`quote`	No
`state`	Yes
`job_id`	Yes
`artifacts`	No
`access_token`	No	Per-job credential. Present it as the X-Job-Token header to read the job or list it. Keep it; it is the only credential for this job.
`verification`	No	Independent verification. verification.ok = false means the job failed, not a partial success.
`capability_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false) and readOnlyHint=false, so the main need is context the annotations do not carry. The description adds the Mermaid output shape, but says nothing about the priced-job authorization path (quote_id from POST /v1/jobs, accepted_price checking) or job lifecycle, which is the least obvious behavior for this tool.

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?

The core capability is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a trigger, an exclusion, and examples in a predictable order. The three pipe-separated example requests are somewhat padded but do illustrate realistic phrasings, so the sizing is close to appropriate.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description rightly need not describe return values, and it does note the Mermaid diagram. However, for a non-read-only job submission gated by quote authorization and an accepting party, leaving the pricing/authorization flow entirely implicit is a real gap even though the parameter schema covers it.

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 75% and the schema already explains sql, quote_id, accepted_price, and authorized_by in prose. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it adds essentially no semantic meaning beyond the structured fields; the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Derive a table-level lineage graph from a set of create/select statements, with a Mermaid diagram" states a specific verb (derive), a specific resource (table-level lineage graph), the input form (create/select statements), and the output form (Mermaid). The table-level qualifier also separates it from column-level or runtime lineage tools, so an agent can place it precisely.

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 both a positive trigger ("When a set of SQL models needs a dependency graph") and an explicit exclusion ("Do not choose this when column-level or runtime lineage is required"). The three quoted example requests reinforce the intended usage without ambiguity.

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

All SwishrJobs tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?