Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

get_data_table_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve DataTable structure, row names, and column details. For composite tables, analyze parent tables, merged rows, and shadowed entries.

Instructions

Retrieves detailed information about a DataTable, including all row names. When the asset is a UCompositeDataTable (see table_class) the reported row_count is the ALREADY-MERGED map, so the response additionally explains where those rows come from: parent_tables[] in precedence order, merged_row_count vs sum_parent_row_counts, shadowed_rows[] with the winning parent, and parent_row_struct_mismatch[] for parents the engine silently skips.

Returns: { table_path, table_name, table_class, row_struct, row_count, row_names, columns:[{ name, type, is_map, is_soft, is_tag }] } plus, for a UCompositeDataTable: { parent_tables:[{ index, path, name, table_class, row_struct, row_count, row_struct_matches, contributes, null_entry }], parent_count, contributing_parent_count, merged_row_count, sum_parent_row_counts, expected_merged_row_count, merged_row_count_matches_parents, parent_row_struct_mismatch:[], shadowed_rows:[{ row_name, winner, winner_parent_slot, shadowed_by_winner:[] }], shadowed_row_count, row_sources_included, row_sources? }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
table_pathYesThe full asset path to the DataTable.
include_row_sourcesNoComposite tables only. Optional bool (default false): also return the winning parent for EVERY merged row. Expensive on large tables.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing non-obvious behavior — that row_count is the merged map, that parents are listed in precedence order, that some parents are silently skipped by the engine, and that include_row_sources is expensive. This is real operational context beyond the annotations.

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?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded, but the Returns block is a dense, comma-separated dump of field names with minimal prose and some redundant phrasing. It is lengthy yet mostly earns its size only because no output schema exists; structure could be tighter.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full return-shape burden and does so thoroughly, including composite-only fields. What it lacks is any guidance on when to prefer this tool over the row/column readers, leaving a selection gap.

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%, and the schema already documents both table_path and include_row_sources (including its expense warning). The description's mention of row_sources_included/row_sources reinforces the flag's effect but adds little syntax the schema lacks. Baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieves detailed information about a DataTable') and scopes it further with composite-table behavior. It does not distinguish itself from the many sibling readers (get_data_table_rows, get_data_table_column, get_data_table_row), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives, despite an enormous set of data-table siblings (get_data_table_rows, get_data_table_column, inspect_chooser_table, read_data_table_row_complex). The composite-table paragraphs explain response semantics, not tool selection. Usage is only implied by the name.

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