Skip to main content
Glama
blitzstermayank

Teradata MCP Server

qlty_negativeValues

Identify columns containing negative values in Teradata database tables to detect data quality issues and validate numerical data integrity.

Instructions

Get the column names that having negative values in a table.

Arguments: database_name - name of the database table_name - table name to analyze

Returns: ResponseType: formatted response with query results + metadata

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
database_nameYes
table_nameYes

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function implementing the qlty_negativeValues tool. Queries the database for columns containing negative values using TD_ColumnSummary and returns formatted results with metadata.
    def handle_qlty_negativeValues(conn: TeradataConnection, database_name: str | None, table_name: str, *args, **kwargs):
        """
        Get the column names that having negative values in a table.
    
        Arguments:
          database_name - name of the database
          table_name - table name to analyze
    
        Returns:
          ResponseType: formatted response with query results + metadata
        """
        logger.debug(f"Tool: handle_qlty_negativeValues: Args: table_name: {database_name}.{table_name}")
    
        if database_name is not None:
                table_name = f"{database_name}.{table_name}"
        with conn.cursor() as cur:
            rows = cur.execute(f"select ColumnName, NegativeCount from TD_ColumnSummary ( on {table_name} as InputTable using TargetColumns ('[:]')) as dt ORDER BY NegativeCount desc")
            data = rows_to_json(cur.description, rows.fetchall())
            metadata = {
                "tool_name": "qlty_negativeValues",
                "database_name": database_name,
                "table_name": table_name,
                "rows": len(data)
            }
            logger.debug(f"Tool: handle_qlty_negativeValues: Metadata: {metadata}")
            return create_response(data, metadata)
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'formatted response with query results + metadata,' but doesn't specify what 'metadata' includes, performance implications, error handling, or data sensitivity. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured sections for arguments and returns. There's minimal waste, though the 'Returns' section could be more concise by integrating with the purpose statement.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (analyzing table data for negative values), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover output format details (e.g., structure of results, metadata fields), error cases, or performance considerations, which are crucial for effective use in a data quality context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the two parameters (database_name and table_name) and their roles, adding meaning beyond the schema's basic titles. However, it doesn't explain parameter constraints (e.g., valid database/table names, null handling for database_name) or provide examples, leaving some semantic gaps.

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's purpose: 'Get the column names that having negative values in a table.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('column names'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like qlty_missingValues or qlty_columnSummary by focusing on negative values. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as qlty_univariateStatistics, which might also reveal negative values indirectly.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a database connection), exclusions (e.g., not for non-numeric columns), or suggest sibling tools like qlty_columnSummary for broader analysis. Usage is implied only by the purpose statement.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/blitzstermayank/MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server