Inspect an event CSV to get its date range, user count, and event type breakdown before choosing a value event.
Shape of an event CSV: date range, user count, events by type.
Mostly useful when you want to look before choosing a value event yourself. For a normal "analyze my product" request call analyze instead — it does this step and everything after it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| csv_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal the high-level output shape (date range, user count, events by type), which is genuine behavioral context, but it never states that the operation is read-only, whether it reads the entire file, or any performance/side-effect expectations.
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?
Three short sentences with no filler; the core output summary is front-loaded and the routing advice follows. Slightly awkward phrasing in the final clause, but nothing is wasted.
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?
With no output schema, the description appropriately sketches the return values, and with only one parameter there is little structural surface to cover. Given no annotations exist, it could say more about the read-only nature, but for a simple inspection tool it is close to complete.
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% for the single parameter 'csv_path', and the description does not compensate — it only says the input is an 'event CSV'. It gives no guidance on path format (local vs. remote), required schema/columns of the CSV, or what constitutes a valid event CSV.
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?
The description names the resource (event CSV) and concretely enumerates what it reports: date range, user count, events by type. It also contrasts itself with the sibling 'analyze', so an agent can differentiate the two. The verb is implied rather than stated ("Shape of an event CSV"), which keeps it just 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states the niche use case ("when you want to look before choosing a value event yourself") and names the alternative for the common case ("call analyze instead — it does this step and everything after it"). Both the when-to-use and the when-not-to-use are given with the sibling tool named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.