Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Metabase MCP

Metabase MCP

by 1luvc0d3
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

run_workflow

Read-only

Chain multiple Metabase operations sequentially in a single call, referencing previous step results with variable syntax. Orchestrate complex queries without manual intervention.

Instructions

Execute a multi-step workflow pipeline in a single call. Steps run sequentially and can reference previous step results using "$stepName.path" syntax. Example: search for dashboards, then get details of the first result, then execute its cards — all in one call. Max 10 steps.

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": {
      "steps": "<steps>"
    },
    "name": "run_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stepsYesOrdered pipeline steps. Each step can reference results from previous steps.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.3.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds key behavioral details: steps run sequentially, can reference previous results using '$stepName.path', max 10 steps. Error handling is covered in the schema but not in description, which is acceptable.

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?

Two sentences plus a note, no wasted words. The core purpose and key usage details are front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool with a single parameter (steps) and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete, covering purpose, sequential execution, referencing, and step limits. Could mention error handling or return behavior, but not critical.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all properties. The description adds value by explaining the '$stepName.path' referencing syntax, but does not elaborate on other parameter aspects.

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 clearly states it executes a multi-step workflow pipeline in a single call, with sequential steps and referencing previous results. It differentiates from sibling tools like batch_execute which likely handles independent calls.

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 provides a clear usage context (multi-step pipeline) and an example, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like batch_execute for independent steps.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools