CSV MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes focused on different CSV operations like creation, reading, filtering, and updating. However, create_csv and create_csv_at_path have overlapping functionality that could cause confusion, as both create CSV files with only a minor path specification difference. The other tools are clearly differentiated by their specific actions on CSV data.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case naming convention with clear verb_noun patterns. The naming is predictable throughout, using verbs like create, read, update, delete, filter, sort, and validate paired with appropriate nouns like csv, data, row, or statistics. There are no deviations in naming style across the toolset.
Tool Count5/5
With 15 tools, this server provides comprehensive coverage for CSV operations without being overwhelming. The count is well-suited for the domain, offering a complete set of operations including file management, data manipulation, analysis, and validation. Each tool serves a distinct purpose that contributes to the overall CSV processing capability.
Completeness5/5
The toolset provides complete coverage for CSV operations including full CRUD lifecycle (create, read, update, delete), data manipulation (filter, sort, group), analysis (statistics, validation), and file management (list, info, path info). There are no obvious gaps in functionality for working with CSV files, and the tools support both basic operations and advanced data processing workflows.
Average 3.3/5 across 15 of 15 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Add a new row') and return type ('Dictionary with addition results'), but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this modifies files in-place, requires specific permissions, handles errors (e.g., missing files or invalid data), or has side effects like appending versus inserting.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The Args and Returns sections are structured for clarity, though the 'Returns' line is somewhat vague ('Dictionary with addition results'). No wasted sentences, but minor room for improvement in specificity.
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?
Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, an output schema exists (which helps), and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks context on file handling, error behavior, or sibling differentiation, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.
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 explains 'filename' as 'Name of the CSV file' and 'row_data' as 'Dictionary mapping column names to values', adding basic meaning beyond the schema's generic titles. However, it doesn't clarify constraints (e.g., file format, data types) or examples, leaving gaps in understanding.
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: 'Add a new row to the CSV file.' This specifies the verb ('Add') and resource ('CSV file'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_csv' or 'update_csv', which prevents a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'create_csv' (for creating new files) and 'update_csv' (which might modify existing rows), there's no indication of when 'add_row' is appropriate versus those tools or prerequisites like file existence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 states what the tool does but lacks important behavioral details: it doesn't specify what happens if the file doesn't exist, if there are no numeric columns, what specific statistics are calculated (mean, median, etc.), whether this is a read-only operation, or any performance considerations. The description provides basic functionality but misses critical behavioral context for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections (purpose statement, Args, Returns). Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information. The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, though the formatting with separate sections could be slightly more concise. No wasted words or redundant information is present.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (statistical analysis), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks important context about error conditions, statistical methodology, and behavioral constraints. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but other gaps remain for a tool performing data analysis.
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?
The description explicitly documents the single parameter ('filename: Name of the CSV file') in the Args section, adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't provide additional context like file path requirements, supported CSV formats, or encoding considerations. With only one parameter and the description compensating for the schema's lack of documentation, this meets the baseline for adequate parameter semantics.
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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('statistical summary of numeric columns in the CSV file'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_csv' or 'filter_data' by focusing specifically on statistical analysis rather than general data reading or manipulation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential statistical siblings (none exist in the list).
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), when not to use it (e.g., for non-CSV files or non-numeric analysis), or compare it to siblings like 'get_info' or 'validate_data' that might provide different types of file information. The usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this creates a new file, implying a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions, file system location, overwrite behavior, error conditions, or rate limits. The return format is vaguely described as a 'Dictionary with creation results and file information', lacking specifics on structure or success indicators.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The structure is logical, though the formatting with quotes and line breaks could be slightly cleaner.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, write operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details like error handling or file system implications. With no annotations, it should provide more context for a mutation tool.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters: 'filename' (name without .csv extension), 'headers' (list of column headers), and 'data' (optional list of rows). It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, clarifying the filename format and data structure. However, it doesn't detail constraints like filename length or header/data validation.
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: 'Create a new CSV file with headers and optional initial data.' It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('CSV file'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'read_csv' or 'update_csv'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_csv_at_path', which appears to be a similar creation tool.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'create_csv_at_path', 'add_row', and 'update_csv', there's no indication of when this specific creation method is preferred, what prerequisites exist, or any exclusions. The usage context is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'file metadata and structure information', which is helpful, but doesn't cover important aspects like whether it requires file existence, handles errors, has performance characteristics, or what specific metadata is included. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.
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 appropriately concise with three focused sentences that each serve a clear purpose: stating the tool's function, documenting the parameter, and describing the return value. The structure with labeled 'Args' and 'Returns' sections enhances readability without unnecessary verbosity.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return value documentation) and a simple single-parameter input, the description is reasonably complete for basic understanding. However, with no annotations and multiple sibling tools that could cause confusion, it lacks sufficient context about behavioral characteristics and differentiation from alternatives.
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?
The description explicitly documents the single parameter ('filename: Name of the CSV file'), adding meaningful context beyond the input schema which has 0% description coverage. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter documentation, making the parameter purpose clear despite the simple schema.
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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('basic information about a CSV file'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_path_info' or 'get_statistics' that might also retrieve information about CSV files, preventing a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_path_info', 'get_statistics', 'list_csv_files', and 'read_csv' that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of what makes 'get_info' distinct or when it should be preferred over other information-retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return type ('Dictionary with list of CSV files and their metadata'), which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation, which are important for a tool that interacts with storage.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by return information. It is brief and avoids unnecessary words, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the return details more seamlessly or using bullet points for better readability.
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?
Given that there is an output schema (which should detail the return structure), the description need not explain return values extensively. However, for a tool with no annotations and multiple siblings, it lacks context on prerequisites, error cases, or how it fits into the broader workflow, making it minimally adequate but with clear 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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly omits parameter details, focusing on the tool's action and output. This is efficient and appropriate, though not perfect as it could briefly note the lack of parameters for clarity.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('CSV files in the storage directory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'read_csv' or 'get_path_info', which might also involve CSV file operations, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'read_csv' (which might read file contents) and 'get_path_info' (which might retrieve metadata), there is no indication of when listing files is preferred over other operations, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool removes a row and returns a dictionary with results, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether changes are permanent or reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid index), or rate limits. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context like safety warnings or usage guidelines, leaving the agent with incomplete information for reliable invocation.
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 adds semantic meaning by explaining 'row_index' as 'zero-based index of the row to remove' and 'filename' as 'Name of the CSV file', which clarifies beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't cover constraints (e.g., file must exist, index bounds) or formats, leaving gaps.
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 with a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('row from the CSV file'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_csv' (which deletes entire files) or 'filter_data' (which might exclude rows without removing them), missing full sibling distinction.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'delete_csv' (for entire file deletion) and 'filter_data' (for data manipulation), the agent lacks explicit direction on appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for row removal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. While it mentions the basic operation (sorting CSV data) and return format (dictionary), it doesn't describe important behaviors like whether the original file is modified, what happens with invalid columns, how ties are broken in sorting, memory/performance considerations for large files, or error handling. For a data manipulation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized Args and Returns sections. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the 'Returns' section could be more specific about the dictionary structure. The formatting with clear sections makes it easy to parse.
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?
Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a reasonable job explaining parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but for a data manipulation tool that could have side effects or specific constraints, more behavioral information would be helpful for safe agent usage.
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?
The description provides meaningful parameter information beyond the schema's 0% coverage. It explains that 'filename' refers to a CSV file, 'columns' can be a single column name or list, 'ascending' controls sort direction, and 'limit' optionally restricts row count. This adds substantial value over the bare schema, though it doesn't cover edge cases like column name validation or limit behavior with null values.
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 as 'Sort CSV data by specified columns' which is a specific verb (sort) + resource (CSV data) + operation (by columns). It distinguishes from siblings like filter_data or group_data by focusing on sorting rather than filtering or grouping operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar siblings.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like filter_data, group_data, and read_csv that might overlap in data manipulation contexts, there's no indication of when sorting is preferred over other operations or what prerequisites might exist for using this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update a specific cell' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: whether the file must exist, if updates are atomic or batched, error handling for invalid indices/columns, or permission requirements. The mention of 'Dictionary with update results' hints at a response format but lacks detail on success/failure indicators.
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 well-structured and appropriately concise. It opens with the core purpose, then lists parameters with brief explanations, and concludes with return information. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or vague phrasing. The bullet-point style for Args/Returns enhances readability without unnecessary verbosity.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations, the description is partially complete. It covers parameters and hints at returns, but with an output schema present, the return value explanation is redundant. However, it misses behavioral context like prerequisites, side effects, or error conditions, which are crucial for a mutation tool without annotations.
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?
The description provides clear semantic explanations for all four parameters in the 'Args' section, mapping each to its role in the update operation. With 0% schema description coverage (titles only, no descriptions), this compensates well by explaining what each parameter represents. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., filename extensions, column name case-sensitivity) or value type expectations beyond the schema.
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: 'Update a specific cell in the CSV file.' It specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('specific cell in CSV file'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_row' or 'remove_row' that also modify CSV files, which prevents a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'add_row', 'remove_row', and 'update_csv' (if this is the only update tool), there's no indication of when cell-level updates are preferred over row-level operations or other CSV modifications. This lack of context leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. While it mentions validation of 'integrity and format', it doesn't specify what constitutes validation failures, whether the tool modifies the file, what permissions are required, or how warnings differ from issues. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose without redundancy. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels are somewhat redundant with the structured schema fields, and the description could be slightly more front-loaded with the most critical information.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (validation operation), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks important context about validation criteria, error handling, and usage scenarios. The output schema existence prevents this from being a complete failure, but more behavioral context would be helpful.
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?
The description explicitly documents the single parameter ('filename: Name of the CSV file'), which is valuable since schema description coverage is 0%. While it doesn't elaborate on format requirements (e.g., path inclusion, file extensions), it provides the essential semantic meaning. With only one parameter, the description adequately compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 as 'Validate CSV data integrity and format' - a specific verb (validate) applied to a specific resource (CSV data). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'read_csv' or 'filter_data' by focusing on validation rather than data manipulation or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get_statistics' might also involve data analysis).
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'read_csv', 'filter_data', and 'get_statistics' available, there's no indication whether validation should precede or follow these operations, or when validation is specifically needed. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether the tool overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or has rate limits. The mention of 'absolute or relative' paths adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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?
Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, and the subsequent bullets clarify parameters and output without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (file creation with data), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters and return intent but misses behavioral aspects like overwriting rules or error handling, which are crucial for safe usage.
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?
The description provides meaningful semantics for all three parameters beyond the 0% schema coverage: 'filepath' as the creation location, 'headers' as column headers, and 'data' as optional rows with value lists. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., CSV escaping).
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 action ('Create a new CSV file') and resource ('at a specific path'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_csv' (which likely has different parameters) and 'add_row' (which modifies existing files). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as 'update_csv'.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_csv' or 'update_csv'. The description mentions path specification but doesn't provide context about prerequisites, file overwriting behavior, or comparisons to other creation/modification tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. While 'Read and return CSV file contents' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether it reads from a specific directory/path, what happens if the file doesn't exist, whether there are file size limits, what authentication is needed, or how errors are handled. For a file I/O tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 perfectly structured and concise. It begins with a clear purpose statement, then provides organized parameter explanations in an 'Args:' section, and concludes with return information. Every sentence earns its place - no redundant information, no fluff, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (file I/O with 2 parameters), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a file reading tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention basic behavioral expectations like error handling or file location assumptions to reach a higher completeness score.
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?
The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the 0% schema description coverage. It explains that 'filename' is the 'Name of the CSV file to read' and 'limit' is an 'Optional limit on number of rows to return' - clarifying the purpose of each parameter. Since schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema properties), the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters' roles and the optional nature of 'limit'.
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 with 'Read and return CSV file contents' - a specific verb (read/return) and resource (CSV file). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_csv_files' (which lists files rather than reading contents) and 'validate_data' (which validates rather than reads). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all 13 siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 13 sibling tools including 'list_csv_files', 'get_info', 'get_path_info', and various data manipulation tools, there's no indication of when read_csv is appropriate versus other reading or information-gathering tools. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the backup behavior ('with backup if enabled'), which is valuable context beyond basic deletion. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, whether deletion is reversible, error handling, or rate limits, leaving behavioral gaps for a destructive operation.
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 front-loaded with the core action and includes structured sections for Args and Returns, making it efficient. However, the backup note could be integrated more seamlessly, and the Returns section is vague ('Dictionary with deletion results'), slightly reducing clarity.
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?
Given no annotations and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the main action and backup behavior but misses critical context for a destructive tool, such as safety warnings, confirmation steps, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., 'list_csv_files' to verify existence).
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%, but the description adds minimal semantics by specifying 'Name of the CSV file to delete' for the 'filename' parameter. This clarifies the parameter's role, though it doesn't provide format details (e.g., file extensions, paths) or examples, resulting in adequate but incomplete compensation.
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 clearly states the verb 'Delete' and resource 'CSV file', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'remove_row' (row-level operation) and 'update_csv' (modification rather than deletion).
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_row' (for row deletion) or other file management tools. The mention of 'backup if enabled' hints at a configuration context but doesn't provide clear when/when-not rules or prerequisites for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns filtered data as a dictionary, which is useful, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., for invalid files or conditions), performance implications, or side effects. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but it's minimal for a tool with parameters and no annotation support.
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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, and the subsequent ones explain parameters and output without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters.
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?
Given the complexity (3 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately, and the output schema handles return values, but it lacks usage guidelines and detailed behavioral context. For a data filtering tool with siblings, more guidance would improve completeness.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters: 'filename', 'conditions' (with examples for simple and complex cases), and 'limit'. It adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic types, such as the structure of conditions and the optional nature of limit. However, it doesn't cover edge cases like file paths or condition syntax details.
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: 'Filter CSV data based on conditions.' It specifies the verb ('filter'), resource ('CSV data'), and mechanism ('conditions'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'group_data' or 'sort_data' that also manipulate CSV data, which prevents a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'group_data', 'sort_data', and 'read_csv' available, there's no mention of specific scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions for using 'filter_data'. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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 the tool groups and aggregates data but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention whether the operation modifies the original file, what happens with invalid inputs, memory/performance considerations, or error handling. The description covers basic functionality but misses important operational context.
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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place by explaining parameters or outputs. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the purpose with the parameter explanations, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded.
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?
Given the complexity (3 parameters with nested objects, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' statement), the description is reasonably complete. It explains all parameters thoroughly and states the return type, though it could benefit from more behavioral context like file handling or error scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters in detail: filename specifies the CSV file, group_by indicates column(s) for grouping, and aggregations defines the mapping of columns to functions. It provides concrete examples of aggregation functions (sum, mean, count, etc.), adding significant value beyond the bare schema.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Group and aggregate CSV data') with the resource ('CSV data'), distinguishing it from siblings like filter_data, sort_data, or get_statistics. It precisely conveys the transformation operation rather than just reading or modifying files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for grouping and aggregating CSV data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_statistics or filter_data. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes key behaviors: it returns comprehensive information including path resolution, existence checks, and safety validation, which goes beyond basic read operations. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, error handling, or performance considerations, leaving some gaps in transparency.
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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose statement followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or unnecessary information, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and an output schema that likely covers return values, the description is complete enough. It explains the tool's purpose, parameter semantics, and return structure comprehensively, providing all necessary context for an agent to invoke it correctly without needing additional details from structured fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that the 'filepath' parameter can be 'relative or absolute' and specifies what the tool analyzes, compensating fully for the schema's lack of descriptions. This provides clear context for the single parameter, making it easy to understand its purpose and usage.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a file path'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_info, get_statistics, or list_csv_files by focusing specifically on path analysis rather than general data operations. It explicitly mentions support for both relative and absolute paths, which further clarifies its scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the mention of 'supporting both relative and absolute paths,' suggesting it's for analyzing file paths, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_info or other sibling tools. There's no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![csv-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/NovaAI-innovation/csv-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/NovaAI-innovation/csv-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![csv-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/NovaAI-innovation/csv-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/NovaAI-innovation/csv-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/NovaAI-innovation/csv-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server