Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
datalens-dev-mcp

datalens-dev-mcp

by ADIKANT
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

dl_operation_reconcile

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reconcile by exact target readback without replay. ACKed historical updates may resolve with unverified content; new changes require fresh CAS. Unknown effects and connection provisioning remain held.

Instructions

Reconcile by exact target readback without replay. ACKed historical updates may resolve with unverified content; new changes require fresh CAS. Unknown effects and connection provisioning remain held. New workbook dashboard creates recover by a persisted metadata marker and full readback, without replay. investigate_create=true also investigates legacy unmarked creates by name; names or absence never establish effect.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
operation_idYes
investigate_createNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.34
    • addedInput schema / properties / investigate_create
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Addedv1.2.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: ACKed historical updates may resolve with unverified content, new changes require fresh CAS, unknown effects and connection provisioning stay held, and names or absence never establish effect. This is genuinely useful disclosure of edge-case behavior, though it could be more explicit about the returned status values.

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?

Reasonably compact with little filler, but the structure is a wall of specialized jargon ("fresh CAS", "persisted metadata marker", "unverified content") that is not front-loaded or organized for quick scanning. Every sentence is dense and assumes deep domain knowledge.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and there is no output schema to explain, so the main gaps are operation_id semantics and what a reconcile result looks like. The description covers edge-case behavior well but leaves the core contract (what is being reconciled, what the outcome means) under-specified.

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. It meaningfully explains investigate_create=true (investigates legacy unmarked creates by name) and the caveat that names never establish effect, but operation_id is left entirely undescribed. Partial compensation for a two-parameter tool.

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

Purpose3/5

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

States a specific verb and mechanism ("Reconcile by exact target readback without replay"), so the general action is discernible. However, it never names the resource being reconciled in plain terms (an operation, keyed by operation_id), and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like dl_operation_get, leaving the agent to infer the relationship from jargon alone.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description catalogs outcomes for various effect categories but never states when an agent should call this tool, when it should not, or what alternative (e.g. dl_operation_get) to use instead. No trigger condition or prerequisite is given.

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