smart-data-extractor
Server Details
smart-data-extractor MCP server on Cloudflare Workers · REST + MCP JSON-RPC · free tier
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- lazymac2x/smart-data-extractor-worker
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.3/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Tools are mostly distinct: auto_schema_learn for schema inference, batch_extract for multiple sources, extract_from_api for API responses, extract_from_url for URL content. Some overlap possible between extract_from_api and extract_from_url if API is accessed via URL, but descriptions clarify different contexts.
Naming pattern is inconsistent: 'auto_schema_learn' uses noun_verb order, while 'batch_extract' and 'extract_from_*' start with verb. 'batch_extract' lacks preposition, unlike the other extract tools. Mix of styles reduces predictability.
With 4 tools, the server is slightly lean but still covers core extraction scenarios (single source, multiple sources, schema learning). Could justify adding one or two more tools for broader coverage, but current count is reasonable.
The tool set covers schema learning and extraction from APIs and URLs, and batch processing. However, missing dedicated tools for single non-URL/api source extraction (e.g., file upload) and no data manipulation or export functionality creates noticeable gaps for a 'data extractor' server.
Available Tools
4 toolsauto_schema_learnBInspect
Idempotent · 30s timeout · Automatically infer JSON Schema from sample data without extraction. Pass idempotency_key to deduplicate within 5 minutes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sample_data | Yes | Representative sample data as JSON string (array of objects or single object). Schema is inferred from structure; use first 1-10 rows for array samples. Max 200KB. | |
| idempotency_key | No | Optional cache key (UUID/string) for 5-minute deduplication. Repeat calls with same key return cached inferred schema instantly. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behaviors. It only states 'infer' but omits details about input constraints, error handling, return format, or whether it is read-only. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is slightly too terse, missing valuable context.
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?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., the inferred schema). It does not, nor does it cover other contextual aspects like required authentication or rate limits. The tool is simple but the description is incomplete.
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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds no new meaning beyond the parameter definition. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already describes the parameter adequately.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: inferring JSON schema from sample data. The verb 'infer' and resource 'JSON schema' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling extraction tools.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention suitable scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
batch_extractCInspect
Idempotent · 30s timeout · Extract data from multiple sources (JSON/JSONL/text) with a single consistent schema. Pass idempotency_key to deduplicate within 5 minutes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schema | No | Optional target JSON Schema (draft-07) applied to all sources. If omitted, inferred from first source and reused across remaining sources. Enables consistent field extraction from diverse formats. | |
| sources | Yes | Array of 1-100 data sources to extract from. Each source includes type (format) and content (raw data). | |
| idempotency_key | No | Optional deduplication key (UUID/string) for 5-minute cache. Identical batch calls (same sources + schema + key) return cached results instantly. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what side effects exist. For a batch operation, performance or transactional behavior is unaddressed.
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?
The description is concise with a single sentence. It conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. However, it could be slightly expanded to improve clarity without losing conciseness.
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 tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, error behavior, or that it handles arrays of sources. The agent may have difficulty understanding how to structure the input or interpret the results.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value ('with consistent schema' aligns with the schema parameter). It does not clarify how the schema parameter interacts with the sources or the expected format of the content field.
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?
The description clearly states the tool extracts data from multiple sources with consistent schema. It implies a batch operation, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like extract_from_url or extract_from_api, which likely handle single sources.
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?
No guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no scenarios described. The agent gets no context on appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
extract_from_apiBInspect
Idempotent · 30s timeout · Extract structured data from API response JSON with schema adaptation. Pass idempotency_key to deduplicate within 5 minutes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schema | No | Optional target JSON Schema (draft-07) for field extraction. If omitted, inferred from content structure. Enforces consistent field extraction across multiple API responses. | |
| content | Yes | API response body as raw JSON string (max 200KB). Can be single object, array of objects, or array of primitives. Automatically parsed and validated. | |
| idempotency_key | No | Optional deduplication key (UUID or unique string) for 5-minute cache. Identical calls return cached result instantly. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it vaguely says 'schema adaptation' without clarifying if this modifies input, requires authentication, or has side effects. No mention of output format, error handling, or constraints.
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?
Single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, clearly conveying the core action and object.
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?
Given sibling tools and lack of output schema, description is adequate but incomplete. It doesn't specify return format, size limits, or edge cases, which would help an agent use it correctly.
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 descriptions cover both parameters fully (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal value. It hints at 'schema adaptation' but doesn't elaborate beyond what schema docs provide.
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?
The description clearly states the tool extracts structured data from API response JSON with schema adaptation, distinguishing it from siblings like extract_from_url (URL-based) and batch_extract (batch). The verb+resource is specific and actionable.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to prefer extract_from_url or auto_schema_learn). No context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is optimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
extract_from_urlAInspect
Idempotent · 30s timeout · Extract structured data from URL content with auto schema learning. Pass idempotency_key to deduplicate identical calls within 5 minutes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | HTTP(S) URL to fetch (will auto-download and parse), or raw content string (up to 200KB). Max 200KB after fetch. | |
| schema | No | Optional pre-defined JSON Schema (draft-07). If omitted, schema is auto-inferred from content. Provide to enforce strict field extraction and type coercion. | |
| idempotency_key | No | Optional UUID or unique identifier for 5-minute deduplication cache. Same key + tool = cached result in <5ms, zero re-fetching. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses idempotency, 30s timeout, and idempotency key dedup duration. Without annotations, this provides useful behavioral context, though more detail on failure modes would improve it.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loads key features (idempotent, timeout) then details key parameter.
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?
No output schema, and description does not explain return format or error handling. Tools with no output schema require more description of expected output.
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 covers all parameters (100% coverage). Description adds extra context for idempotency_key (dedup within 5 min) and auto schema learning for schema parameter.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'extract' and resource 'URL content', with auto schema learning. Distinguished from siblings by focusing on single URL extraction.
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?
No explicit when/when-not or alternatives mentioned. Context of sibling tools implies usage, but not directly addressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!