Skip to main content
Glama

RevoGrid DataGrid MCP Pro

by io.github.revolist

Find RevoGrid Examples

find_examples
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when implementation evidence should be a runnable or registered RevoGrid example, optionally filtered by framework and package.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum examples per page.
queryYesCapability or scenario demonstrated by a runnable example.
cursorNoOpaque cursor returned by the previous page.
productNoRevoGrid product demonstrated by the example.
surfaceNoLegacy catalog surface filter.
versionNoIndexed package version.
frameworkNoPreferred example framework.
packageNameNoExact published npm package name.
requiresProNoFilter by descriptive Pro/license requirement.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultsYes
nextCursorNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed12 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / cursor
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Opaque cursor returned by the previous page.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / framework / description
      Added value: +"Preferred example framework."
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"Maximum examples per page."
    • addedInput schema / properties / packageName
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Exact published npm package name.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / product
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "RevoGrid product demonstrated by the example.",
+  "enum": [
+    "core",
+    "pro",
+    "pivot",
+    "gantt",
+    "scheduler",
+    "kanban",
+    "collaboration",
+    "enterprise"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / query / description
      Added value: +"Capability or scenario demonstrated by a runnable example."
    • addedInput schema / properties / requiresPro / description
      Added value: +"Filter by descriptive Pro/license requirement."
    • addedInput schema / properties / surface / description
      Added value: +"Legacy catalog surface filter."
    • addedInput schema / properties / version / description
      Added value: +"Indexed package version."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "nextCursor": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "results": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "exampleUrl": {
+            "format": "uri",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "framework": {
+            "enum": [
+              "react",
+              "vue",
+              "angular",
+              "svelte",
+              "vanilla"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "packages": {
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "requiresPro": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "score": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "sourceUrl": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "summary": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "surface": {
+            "enum": [
+              "core",
+              "pro",
+              "pivot",
+              "plugin",
+              "columntype",
+              "migration",
+              "changelog",
+              "internal"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "version": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "id",
+          "title",
+          "surface",
+          "requiresPro",
+          "summary",
+          "packages",
+          "score"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "results"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / requiresPro
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the burden on the description. The description does add one catalog-scoped behavioral trait: results are 'runnable or registered' examples rather than arbitrary matches. It does not disclose pagination behavior via cursor/limit, the meaning of 'registered' versus 'runnable,' or the legacy 'surface' filter, which would have deepened transparency.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the invocation condition ('Use when...') and packs the entire semantic scope into roughly 21 words. There is zero filler, and the ordering is ideal: condition first, resource scope second, filters last. Every element earns its place.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool, the description is minimal, but the 100%-covered schema and presence of an output schema mean parameters and return values need no description-level documentation. The real gap is semantic calibration: 'runnable or registered' is left undefined, and the description never positions the tool against search_revogrid_docs or plan_revogrid_implementation, so an agent entering fresh from a different workflow must infer where 'implementation evidence' begins and ends.

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% — all nine parameters have descriptions, including enums, defaults, and constraints — so the schema carries the full parameter burden. The description adds only that results are 'optionally filtered by framework and package,' which mildly foregrounds the two primary filters but contributes no meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource (RevoGrid examples) and the scoping qualifiers ('runnable or registered,' 'optionally filtered by framework and package'), which sets it apart from siblings like search_revogrid_docs and list_revogrid_capabilities by implication. However, the differentiation is implicit — it never explicitly names the sibling it is not, so an agent must infer the boundary between 'examples' and 'docs' or 'capabilities.'

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description opens with an explicit 'Use when...' construction and states the precise invocation condition: when implementation evidence should be a runnable or registered RevoGrid example. This is a clear, actionable context. It does not, however, provide when-not guidance or name alternatives such as search_revogrid_docs for documentation needs, leaving the exclusion logic to inference.

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

All RevoGrid DataGrid MCP Pro toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially the action-oriented workflow tools like plan and validate. The main ambiguity is among the discovery/query tools—list_revogrid_capabilities, resolve_feature_matrix, search_revogrid_docs, and inspect_revogrid_api—though their descriptions provide enough guidance to avoid frequent misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, such as find_examples, inspect_revogrid_api, and validate_revogrid_usage. The verbs clearly indicate the action, and the naming style is uniform across the entire set.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is well-scoped for a RevoGrid implementation-assistance server. Each tool serves a meaningful step in the discovery-to-validation workflow without excessive redundancy or a feeling of missing core functionality.

Completeness5/5

The toolset covers the full knowledge-workflow lifecycle: discover capabilities, resolve feature existence, search docs, inspect exact APIs, find examples, get migration notes, plan implementation, and validate usage. This is a comprehensive surface for the stated purpose, with no obvious dead ends.

Resources