Compile a dbt transformation to resolve Jinja, ref(), and source() references without running it. Use this tool to preview the final SQL before execution.
Compile a dbt transformation — resolves Jinja, ref(), source(). No execution.
Args: transformation_id: The transformation to compile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transformation_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key trait: no execution, and mentions the compilation process (resolving Jinja, ref(), source()). However, it does not describe what the output looks like (though an output schema exists) or whether there are any side effects. More context, such as a dry-run nature, would enhance transparency.
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?
The description is concise, with the primary information front-loaded in the first sentence. The Args section is somewhat redundant but does not detract. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clean.
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?
Given the tool has only one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It lacks explicit usage guidance but is otherwise complete for a simple compilation tool. The output schema likely details return values, so the description need not elaborate.
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?
The schema has zero description coverage, so the description's 'The transformation to compile' adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name. It clarifies the parameter's role but doesn't explain how to obtain a transformation_id or any constraints. The description barely compensates for the lack of schema documentation.
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 clearly states the action 'compile' on a 'dbt transformation' and explicitly specifies that it resolves Jinja, ref(), and source() with no execution. This distinguishes it from siblings like preview_transformation and trigger_transformation, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description conveys the context that this tool performs compilation only and does not execute, which implies it is for validation rather than running. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over preview_transformation or trigger_transformation, nor does it list exclusions or alternatives. The context is clear but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.