@mcpx-digital/csv-tools

sample_rows

Returns the first N rows of a CSV file for quick preview or validation, defaulting to 5 and max 100. Processes local files only, ensuring data privacy.

Instructions

Return the first N data rows from a CSV (default 5, max 100). Local files only — never uploads user data anywhere.

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": {
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "sample_rows"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`n`	No	Number of rows to sample.
`filePath`	Yes
`delimiter`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the default/max row cap and the 'local files only, never uploads' privacy guarantee. However, it says nothing about error behavior, delimiter handling semantics, or what the returned rows look like structurally.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core behavior first and the default/max constraints immediately after. Every clause adds 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return shape and edge cases more fully. It adequately conveys the operation and the local-only guarantee but omits delimiter behavior and failure modes, leaving it adequate-but-incomplete for a 3-parameter tool.

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 only 33% (only 'n' is documented). The description usefully adds the default (5) and max (100) for n and strongly implies filePath is a local path, but the delimiter parameter is never mentioned in either the schema or the description, leaving a real gap.

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 gives a precise verb+resource+scope ('Return the first N data rows from a CSV'), which clearly separates it from validation/conversion siblings like validate_csv or csv_to_json. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it falls 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 Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use statement or routing to an alternative tool (e.g., validate_csv for schema checks or csv_to_json for conversion). Usage is only implied by the word 'sample', leaving the agent to infer the preview/inspection scenario.

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

Deploy Server