Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dremio-mcp-lite

dremio-mcp-lite

by guillaume-galp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

table_preview

Preview the first 10 rows of any Dremio table by supplying its full catalog path as an array.

Instructions

Preview the first 10 rows of a table

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": {
      "table_path": "<table_path>"
    },
    "name": "table_preview"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
table_pathYesFull path to the table as an array (e.g., ["source_name", "schema", "table_name"])

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.9

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key constraint 'first 10 rows', which implies a read-only, bounded operation, but it does not mention side effects, ordering, failure behavior, or what happens with missing tables.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant details. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

For a single-parameter preview tool, the description is largely sufficient: it names the resource and the row limit. The lack of an output schema and any mention of return format is a minor gap, but the tool is simple enough that the description remains usable.

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?

The schema already provides a complete description of table_path with an example. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Preview') and resource ('the first 10 rows of a table'), which is clear and actionable. It differentiates from siblings by emphasizing a bounded preview rather than full querying, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sql_query or catalog_browse. The description implies a lightweight look at data, but it does not provide conditions, exclusions, or comparisons.

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