spss-studio-mcp

by CongJyu

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Spss List Files

spss_list_files

Lists SPSS .sav files in a directory, helping you discover available datasets when no file path is specified.

Instructions

List SPSS .sav files in a directory. Useful for discovering available datasets when the user hasn't specified a file path.

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": {
      "directory": "<directory>"
    },
    "name": "spss_list_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`directory`	Yes
`recursive`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only implies this is a safe read/discovery operation. It says nothing about recursion behavior, path resolution, permission requirements, or what happens with an empty/invalid directory. The safety profile is inferable but not disclosed.

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 tight sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the usage hint following. Nothing extraneous.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the purpose is adequately conveyed for a simple listing tool. But both parameters are undocumented and there are no annotations, leaving meaningful gaps around the 'recursive' behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely fails. It implies the directory is a filesystem location but adds no format details (absolute vs relative path), and the 'recursive' parameter is entirely unaddressed in both schema and description.

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 (List) and resource (.sav files in a directory), which is clearly distinct from sibling tools like spss_list_variables or spss_list_supported_methods. It reads well without opening the schema, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against.

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?

Provides a concrete when-to-use condition: 'discovering available datasets when the user hasn't specified a file path.' That is real routing context. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Deploy Server