DataSearcher MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

load_file

Load CSV, Excel, or Parquet files into DuckDB for analysis. For Excel, load all sheets or specify one; Parquet is read directly.

Instructions

Загрузка CSV/Excel/Parquet файла в DuckDB для анализа. Excel: если sheet не указан, грузит все листы. Parquet загружается через DuckDB read_parquet.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "load_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`sheet`	No
`table_name`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 1, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behaviors: Excel loads all sheets when sheet is omitted, and Parquet is loaded via DuckDB read_parquet. However, it does not disclose whether existing tables are overwritten, how table_name is used, or what happens on errors.

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?

The description is compact at two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds relevant format-specific details that justify their place.

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?

For a tool with three parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits table_name semantics and does not address key edge cases like existing table behavior. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but invocation guidance remains insufficient.

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. It explains the sheet parameter's default behavior and the Parquet loading mechanism, but it leaves table_name entirely undocumented, leaving the agent unsure how that parameter affects the load.

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 states a specific verb and resource: loading CSV/Excel/Parquet files into DuckDB for analysis. It clearly names supported formats and the target system, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like attach_database or export_data.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as attach_database or sql_query. The phrase 'для анализа' implies a general use case, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are provided.

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