DataSearcher MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

build_bi_link

Generates a ready-to-use BI dashboard URL with pre-filled filters and time range, giving direct access to relevant data in Grafana, Superset, Tableau, and more.

Instructions

Сгенерировать URL для внешнего BI-инструмента с предзаполненными фильтрами (ТЗ 3.4). params: JSON {"region": "Москва", "product": "Widget A"} time_from/time_to: для Grafana (например '2024-01-01', '2024-02-01')

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": {
      "tool": "<tool>",
      "base_url": "<base_url>"
    },
    "name": "build_bi_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tool`	Yes
`params`	No
`time_to`	No
`base_url`	Yes
`time_from`	No
`dashboard_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool generates URLs but does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it makes external network calls, requires authentication, or has side effects. It also omits any error handling or edge-case behavior. The description gives a definition of intent but no transparency on execution behavior.

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 description is brief—essentially one sentence with examples. It front-loads the purpose and then gives parameter hints. However, it mixes purpose with parameter examples in a somewhat unstructured way, and the Russian text uses shorthand that is not universally clear. It is concise but could be better organized with headings or a clearer separation of purpose, parameters, and examples.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given six parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is underwhelming. It only clarifies two parameters (params, time_from/time_to) while leaving the required tool and base_url, plus dashboard_id, unexplained. The tool parameter is crucial because it determines the URL format for different BI systems, yet the description doesn't mention how the tool selection alters behavior. An agent would struggle to correctly invoke this for, say, Power BI versus Grafana without additional info. An output schema exists, but the description should still cover the core parameters sufficiently.

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 must compensate. It provides meaningful examples for 'params' (a JSON object of filters) and time_from/time_to (Grafana date format), which adds value beyond the schema's bare string type. However, it does not explain the required parameters 'tool' and 'base_url', nor the optional 'dashboard_id', leaving half of the parameters undefined. Partial compensation only.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Сгенерировать URL для внешнего BI-инструмента с предзаполненными фильтрами' (Generate URL for external BI tool with pre-filled filters). This identifies the action (generate URL), the resource (external BI tool), and the key feature (pre-filled filters). It distinguishes itself from siblings like build_dashboard and create_public_dashboard, which don't generate pre-filtered external links. However, the reference to 'ТЗ 3.4' is cryptic and the description doesn't explicitly clarify the output format beyond 'URL', so a perfect score is not warranted.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, scenarios, or when not to use it. It only describes what it does, not how to choose it over other link-generation or dashboard tools. Since siblings include build_dashboard and create_public_dashboard, explicit selection criteria are missing.

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