Skip to main content
Glama
ADIKANT

datalens-dev-mcp

by ADIKANT
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

dl_editor_validate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate one Editor draft or a mixed typed draft batch, including artifact references, without execution. With destination and output_dir, prepare exact typed-dashboard wire in a private local artifact (static_validity_only, zero provider…

Instructions

Validate one Editor draft or a mixed typed draft batch, including artifact references, without execution. With destination and output_dir, prepare exact typed-dashboard wire in a private local artifact (static_validity_only, zero provider calls). An Editor draft uses the observed variant and filename-keyed tabs (meta.json, params.js, etc.), not raw provider data keys. Required tabs depend on subtype; a static draft does not replace the full saved snapshot.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
draftNo
draftsNo
output_dirNo
destinationNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.34
    • addedInput schema / properties / destination
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "workbook_id": {
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "workbook_id"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / output_dir
      Added value: +{
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv1.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the lower bar is met. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: 'zero provider calls', 'static_validity_only', results written to 'a private local artifact', and the caveat that a static draft 'does not replace the full saved snapshot'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler, but the prose is dense and jargon-heavy ('exact typed-dashboard wire', 'observed variant and filename-keyed tabs'), packing four ideas into four sentences that would benefit from plainer structuring.

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 nested-object, 0%-coverage tool with no output schema, the description covers the behavioral modes reasonably but never indicates what validation results/errors are returned or how the draft payload relates to the resulting artifact, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies the draft/drafts oneOf ('one Editor draft or a mixed typed draft batch') and ties 'destination and output_dir' to a specific preparation behavior, but does not document the draft object shape or which tab keys are required per subtype.

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 opening states a specific verb and resource: 'Validate one Editor draft or a mixed typed draft batch... without execution.' The 'Editor draft' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling dl_dataset_validate, though it never names that alternative explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Without execution' and the conditional 'With destination and output_dir...' hint at when each mode applies, giving implied usage context. But it never names a sibling as the alternative or states an explicit when-not-to-use condition, leaving routing to inference.

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