Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
lsth-mcp

lsth-mcp

by TranNhatPhi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

csv_write

Write CSV files with UTF-8 BOM encoding to preserve Vietnamese diacritics in Excel. Specify rows and output path for reliable data export.

Instructions

Xuất CSV (utf-8-sig, mở bằng Excel không vỡ dấu tiếng Việt).

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>",
      "rows": "<rows>"
    },
    "name": "csv_write"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
rowsYes
serverNogateway
dry_runNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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 the encoding (utf-8-sig) and Excel compatibility, which is useful, but does not mention side effects like overwriting, file creation behavior, or error conditions. Since an output schema exists, return format is covered elsewhere, but the description is thin on behavioral traits.

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 a single sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and the key encoding detail, 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.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 4 parameters, no annotations, and a minimal description, the tool is not fully specified. The description omits any guidance on optional parameters like server and dry_run, and does not explain the behavior beyond encoding. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional schema or tool knowledge.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameter (path, rows, server, dry_run) or their meaning. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving the agent to guess 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 exports CSV with utf-8-sig encoding for Excel compatibility. This is a specific verb+resource that differentiates it from file_write, excel_write, and json_write, though it doesn't explicitly mention writing to a path.

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 a use case (Excel compatibility for Vietnamese diacritics) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. It gives context but no exclusions.

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