Retrieve a saved chart form configuration by its key to explore charts in Superset.
Get form data for chart exploration
Makes a request to the /api/v1/explore/form_data/{key} endpoint to retrieve previously stored chart configuration.
Args: key: Key of the form data to retrieve
Returns: A dictionary with the stored chart configuration
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a retrieval operation ('get'), implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., what happens if the key is invalid), rate limits, or response format details beyond 'a dictionary.' This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and concise: it starts with a clear purpose, provides endpoint context, and includes separate 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details (e.g., auth, errors). Without annotations or output schema, it should do more to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'key': it explains it's the 'Key of the form data to retrieve.' With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well by clarifying the parameter's purpose, though it doesn't specify format (e.g., string pattern) or examples. For one parameter, this is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get form data for chart exploration' and 'retrieve previously stored chart configuration.' It specifies the verb ('get') and resource ('form data'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'superset_explore_form_data_create' or 'superset_explore_permalink_get' that might handle similar data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions retrieving 'previously stored' data but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid key from a create operation) or contrast it with siblings like 'superset_explore_form_data_create' for storing data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.