Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hex-mcp-server

hex-mcp-server

by chuotdelongchamp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

hex-ingest-semantic-project

Ingest a semantic project in Hex from uploaded data by specifying the target semantic project ID.

Instructions

Ingest a semantic project from uploaded data.

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": {
      "semanticProjectId": "<semanticProjectId>"
    },
    "name": "hex-ingest-semantic-project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoIngestion payload
semanticProjectIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
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 behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether ingestion replaces or merges existing project content, whether it is idempotent, what permissions are required, or what happens on partial payloads.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single clean sentence with no filler, which is structurally fine. But it is under-specified rather than concise — brevity here comes at the cost of meaning, not from efficiency.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested payload whose schema description is vague, this definition is materially incomplete. An agent cannot determine required preconditions, payload expectations, or side effects before invoking it.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 50%: 'data' is described merely as 'Ingestion payload' and 'semanticProjectId' has no schema description at all. The description adds no field-level meaning or payload shape, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap even though this is a nested object parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a verb ('Ingest'), a resource ('semantic project'), and a source ('uploaded data'), so the general action is inferable. However, it never distinguishes this from the closely named sibling 'hex-update-semantic-project', leaving the agent to guess at the boundary between ingesting and updating.

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 statement of when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist (e.g. that data must already be uploaded before calling), or which sibling to prefer for related operations. The noun 'uploaded data' hints at a prerequisite but does not instruct.

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