hex-mcp-server

hex-run-project

Trigger a run of a published Hex project, optionally passing input parameters and controlling SQL cache or published results updates.

Instructions

Trigger a run of a published Hex project. Optionally provide input parameters and cache control.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "hex-run-project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`projectId`	Yes	The project UUID
`inputParams`	No	Key-value input parameters for the project run
`useCachedSqlResults`	No	Use cached SQL results (default true). Set false to force fresh queries.
`updatePublishedResults`	No	Update the published app cache with run results (default false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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. It mentions 'cache control' but omits critical traits: whether the run is async, whether it returns a run ID to poll, permission requirements, and what the cache flags actually affect. For a mutation-triggering 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the optional inputs mentioned second. No filler, though it is arguably too terse for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a nested inputParams object, the description should explain the run lifecycle (async, run ID, polling via get-run-status) and cache semantics. It leaves all of that unaddressed, so an agent lacks what it needs to invoke and follow up correctly.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description only gestures at 'input parameters and cache control', adding no meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (trigger a run) and resource (a published Hex project), which distinguishes it from siblings like hex-get-run-status and hex-cancel-run. It doesn't explicitly name those alternatives, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the 'published Hex project' scope, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. hex-get-run-status, hex-cancel-run, or hex-get-project-runs, nor any prerequisites (e.g., project must be published).

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

Deploy Server