Configure the workbook datasource to use a local Hyper extract connection.
Configure the workbook datasource to use a local Hyper extract connection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tables | No | ||
| filepath | Yes | ||
| table_name | No | Extract | |
| relationships | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.28.0Input schema / properties / relationshipsAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Relationships"
+}v0.18.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It says 'configure' (implying mutation of the datasource) but does not disclose whether it overwrites an existing connection, what permissions are required, what side effects occur, or what happens to the current datasource. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler, so structurally efficient. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than genuine conciseness, leaving it adequate at best.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the definition is still incomplete for a 4-parameter mutation tool: no parameter documentation, no usage guidance, and no behavioral disclosure in the absence of annotations. It leaves the agent poorly equipped to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters (filepath, tables, table_name, relationships), and the description mentions none of them—not even the required filepath. It provides no meaning, format, or defaults beyond what the bare schema titles already show.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Configure) and resource (workbook datasource) scoped to a local Hyper extract connection, which distinguishes it from siblings like set_tableauserver_connection, set_csv_connection, and set_mysql_connection by the connection type. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative or contrasting with add_hyper_datasource, so it's clear but not maximally differentiating.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to overlapping siblings such as set_tableauserver_connection, set_csv_connection, inspect_excel_connection, or add_hyper_datasource. The agent must infer the selection criteria entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.