Skip to main content
Glama
Teradata

Teradata MCP Server

Official
by Teradata
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussions(1)Admin
Python
Remote

Dba Featureusage

dba_featureUsage
Read-onlyIdempotent

Report which Teradata product features were used during a specified date range, showing feature adoption and utilization changes over time.

Instructions

Report which Teradata product features were used during a specified date range. Use when the user asks about feature adoption, which Teradata capabilities are being used, or how feature utilization has changed over a period.

Arguments: start_date - The start date for the query range in YYYY-MM-DD format. end_date - The end date for the query range in YYYY-MM-DD format. persist - If True, materializes result as a volatile table and returns table name

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
persistNoIf True, materializes result as a volatile table and returns table name
end_dateYesThe end date for the query range in YYYY-MM-DD format.
start_dateYesThe start date for the query range in YYYY-MM-DD format.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.2.1
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedInput schema / properties / end_date / title
      Removed value: -"End Date"
    • addedInput schema / properties / persist
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "If True, materializes result as a volatile table and returns table name",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / start_date / title
      Removed value: -"Start Date"
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / end_date / description
      Added value: +"The end date for the query range in YYYY-MM-DD format."
    • addedInput schema / properties / start_date / description
      Added value: +"The start date for the query range in YYYY-MM-DD format."
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"_dynamic_toolArguments"
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about the persist parameter (materializing as a volatile table and returning the table name), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations. No further side effects are disclosed, but given the read-only nature, this is sufficient.

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: a clear purpose sentence, a usage guideline, and an Arguments section. It is front-loaded with the purpose and usage. The Arguments section is slightly redundant given the schema, but it is concise and not verbose. It earns a 4 rather than 5 due to minor 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?

For a reporting tool with no output schema, the description does not fully specify the return format. It only mentions that when persist is true, a table name is returned; otherwise the result shape is left implicit. Given the complexity and sibling tools that likely return tabular data, more detail on output would improve completeness. It is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description repeats the parameter explanations in the Arguments section without adding any new semantics. Per the rubric, when schema coverage is high, baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 states a specific action ('Report') on a clear resource ('Teradata product features') with a date-range scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dba_tableUsage and dba_resusageSummary by focusing on feature adoption rather than table or resource usage. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit 'Use when' conditions are provided, covering feature adoption, capability usage, and utilization changes. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool, which is the only gap from a full 5.

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