Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
datavilleorg

dataville-mcp

by datavilleorg
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

dataville-mcp

MCP-сервер, предоставляющий API источников данных Dataville в качестве инструментов для MCP-клиентов (Claude Desktop, Claude Code и т. д.).

Требуется API-ключ Dataville — получить его можно в панели управления Dataville.

Инструменты

  • list_dataville_sources — выводит список источников данных, доступных через search_dataville.

  • search_dataville — запрос к источнику данных: { source, keywords, params? }.

Related MCP server: Exasol MCP Server

Настройка

Добавьте это в конфигурацию вашего MCP-клиента (Claude Code / Claude Desktop), указав DATAVILLE_API_KEY в качестве вашего собственного ключа:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "dataville": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@dataville/dataville-mcp"],
      "env": {
        "DATAVILLE_API_KEY": "dataville_your_key_here"
      }
    }
  }
}

Установка не требуется — npx загружает и запускает пакет по запросу.

DATAVILLE_API_BASE_URL является необязательным и по умолчанию равен https://api.dataville.com; установите его в http://localhost:5000, чтобы указать на локальный бэкенд во время разработки.

Запуск из исходного кода

git clone https://github.com/datavilleorg/dataville-mcp.git
cd dataville-mcp
npm install
npm run build

Разработка

npm run dev   # tsx watch

Available Tools

2 tools
list_dataville_sourcesList Dataville data sourcesAInspect

List the data sources available through Dataville's search_dataville tool.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List' without confirming read-only behavior, output format, or potential limitations. This minimal information provides little transparency beyond the basic action.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, compact sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently conveys the core purpose. It could optionally detail what information is included in the list of sources, but the current description is adequate for the tool's scope.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema is empty. The baseline is 4, and the description needs to add no parameter details since there are none to explain.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('data sources'), and explicitly ties them to Dataville's search_dataville tool. This distinguishes it from the sibling search tool, which focuses on querying, 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The implication is that listing data sources is a precursor to using search_dataville, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus search_dataville or mention any exclusions. Context is present but not explicit.

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

search_datavilleSearch a Dataville data sourceAInspect

Query one of Dataville's data sources (see list_dataville_sources for valid source names) with a keyword string and optional query params.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsNoOptional additional query parameters
sourceYesData source name, e.g. 'wikipedia', 'arxiv', 'edgar'
keywordsYesSearch keywords or identifier for the query

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool is a query operation, implying no destructive behavior. It does not detail potential behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or result limits, which would elevate transparency. With no annotations, this is adequate but minimal.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single sentence that efficiently delivers the core purpose, references the sibling tool for additional context, and mentions both the keyword and optional params. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 3 parameters (100% schema coverage), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete for a simple query tool. It tells the agent what to query and where to find valid sources. However, it lacks information about what the output looks like (e.g., result format) which would be needed for full completeness.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only hinting that 'keywords' is a search string and 'params' are optional. It does not explain how params are used or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Query'), resource ('one of Dataville's data sources'), and key components (keyword string, optional query params). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by referencing list_dataville_sources for valid source names.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says to use list_dataville_sources to find valid source names, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not exclude any scenarios or mention when not to use it, missing a point for a perfect score.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 2 tool updatesv0.1.0
    • First observedlist_dataville_sources
    • First observedsearch_dataville
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one lists available data sources, the other queries a specific source. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with the 'dataville' prefix ('list_dataville_sources', 'search_dataville'), making them predictable and easy to understand.

Tool Count2/5

With only 2 tools, the server is severely under-scoped for a data platform. While listing and searching are core, many essential operations (e.g., adding/removing sources, metadata exploration) are missing, making the count feel inadequate.

Completeness1/5

The tool surface is extremely bare. Missing lifecycle operations for sources, lack of search result pagination or filtering, and no way to inspect source schemas or metadata. Agents will hit dead ends quickly.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • Exasol MCP Server

    exasol
    -
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Provides an LLM access to the Exasol database via MCP tools, enabling reading of database metadata and execution of data reading queries.
    18
    -