Skip to main content
Glama
ADIKANT

datalens-dev-mcp

by ADIKANT
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

dl_object_relations

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read direct API-visible relations: direction=from for dependencies, to (legacy default) for consumers. Completeness covers the selected pagination, not a transitive or revision-bound graph.

Instructions

Read direct API-visible relations: direction=from for dependencies, to (legacy default) for consumers. Completeness covers the selected pagination, not a transitive or revision-bound graph. Optional publish_targets with intended saved revisions produces a read-only selected-dependency manifest; no automatic publication.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
directionNoto
max_pagesNo
object_idYes
page_sizeNo
page_tokenNo
publish_targetsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.34
    • addedInput schema / properties / publish_targets
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "expected_saved_revision": {
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "object_id": {
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "object_type": {
+        "enum": [
+          "dashboard",
+          "editor_chart",
+          "wizard_chart",
+          "ql_chart"
+        ],
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "object_id",
+      "object_type",
+      "expected_saved_revision"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 50,
+  "minItems": 1,
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.27
    • addedInput schema / properties / direction
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "to",
+  "enum": [
+    "from",
+    "to"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Addedv1.2.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description only needs to add context — and it does: it discloses that completeness is bounded by the selected pagination rather than a transitive or revision-bound graph, and that publish_targets yields a read-only manifest with no automatic publication. That is meaningful behavior beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler; the primary read semantics are front-loaded before the completeness caveat and the optional manifest behavior. The jargon density is high but each sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the two non-obvious behaviors an agent needs (pagination-bounded completeness and the read-only publish_targets manifest). The main remaining gap is that pagination parameters (page_size, page_token, max_pages) are undocumented, but for a read-only tool the coverage is close to sufficient.

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 carries the burden, and it does define direction's two values and the purpose of publish_targets (intended saved revisions producing a read-only manifest). It leaves object_id, max_pages, page_size, and page_token entirely unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Read') with a specific resource ('direct API-visible relations') and immediately qualifies scope (direct, API-visible). It does not name a sibling, so an agent must infer differentiation from the resource noun alone, which is nonetheless distinctive against tools like dl_object_diff and dl_object_revisions.

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?

It explains the semantics of direction=from (dependencies) vs to (consumers, legacy default), which implicitly tells the agent which value yields which view. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over sibling graph/diff/revision tools, nor any prerequisites, leaving usage 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