Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sdc-mapper-mcp

sdc-mapper-mcp

Official
by SemanticDataCharter
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

fidelity

Compare how each installed mapper handles Exceptional Values in one record, showing per value and target whether a format can explain why a value is missing or unusable or can only leave it empty.

Instructions

Run every installed mapper on one record and compare what each target did with each Exceptional Value: one row per Exceptional Value, one column per target. Shows which formats can say why a value is missing or unusable, and which can only leave it empty.

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": {
      "record": "<record>"
    },
    "name": "fidelity"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ct_idNoThe model's identifier (CUID2) in the public catalog; the package is fetched from the host this server was started with.
recordYesPath to the Governed Data Record's XML file on disk.
mappingsNoMapping file paths by mapper name.
directoryNoA package directory already on disk (dm-<ct>.jsonld and dm-<ct>.xsd, optionally catalog.json and versions.json). Give this or ct_id, not both.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv4.1.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful output semantics (row/column layout, what the comparison reveals) but omits whether it is read-only, whether it requires installed mappers or exact prerequisites, cost/perf, and output encoding. Some value added, meaningful gaps remain.

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?

Two dense sentences, action-first, with the output structure front-loaded right after the verb. Minor jargon ('Exceptional Value') adds cognitive load but every clause earns its place.

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?

There is a nested object (mappings), no output schema, and no annotations, so the description should do more — yet it gives no return encoding, error behavior, or mention of how mappings/directory interplay works. Adequate conceptually but incomplete for this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters and the ct_id/directory exclusivity are documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific action: run every installed mapper on one record and compare per-target handling of Exceptional Values. The output shape (one row per EV, one column per target) makes the resource concrete. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling like map_record for contrast, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Implied usage is clear from the comparison framing — you'd use this to see how various formats represent missing/unusable values. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus map_record/check_mapping, and no stated preconditions (mappers must be installed).

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