Skip to main content
Glama
HorizunGroup

Horizun PBI MCP

Official
by HorizunGroup
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

pbi_audit_project

Audit Power BI semantic models, reports, and layouts to get global and per-domain scores, prioritized findings with evidence, and recommendations. Optionally generate Markdown or HTML reports.

Instructions

Auditoria integral: modelo semantico + informe + layout.

Devuelve puntaje global y por dominio, resumen ejecutivo, hallazgos priorizados con evidencia y recomendacion, y que reglas tienen correccion automatica.

formats: ['markdown','html'] escribe tambien esos informes en outputs/ y devuelve sus rutas. rules y min_severity acotan.

compact=true devuelve la MISMA auditoria sin repetir texto: cada hallazgo lleva un finding_id, priority pasa a ser la lista de esos identificadores en orden en vez de copias completas, y groups agrupa las repeticiones por regla con su recuento y una muestra. Los puntajes y recuentos por dominio no cambian. Los informes de formats se escriben siempre completos.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rulesNo
compactNo
formatsNo
min_severityNoinfo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / compact
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "title": "Compact",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are sparse, but the description discloses a real side effect: when `formats` is provided, it 'escribe tambien esos informes en outputs/ y devuelve sus rutas'. It also explains compact mode's structural changes and confirms that written reports are always complete. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear behavior model.

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?

The description is tightly packed with useful information: outcome summary, file side effects, filtering, and compact-mode semantics. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place, though the compact-mode explanation is dense and could benefit from light structuring.

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?

For a 4-parameter optional tool with an output schema, the description covers the main return content, file outputs, filtering, and compact behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to call it effectively; the missing severity levels and explicit sibling routing are the only gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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 explains `formats` with allowed values, `compact` in detail, and says `rules` and `min_severity` acotan (narrow) the audit. The only real gap is that it doesn't list the allowed severity values for `min_severity`, so the parameter semantics are strong but not complete.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description starts with 'Auditoria integral: modelo semantico + informe + layout', which clearly names the verb, resource, and scope. It also differentiates itself from sibling pbi_audit_report_only by emphasizing the full project audit including layout, not just the report.

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?

The phrase 'Auditoria integral' establishes that this is the complete audit tool, and the notes about automatic correction rules and compact mode give practical filtering context. However, it never explicitly says 'use this instead of X' or names alternative tools like pbi_audit_model or pbi_audit_report_only, so the routing is clear but not explicit.

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