Visuals MCP Server

Query Table Data

query_table_data

Query table data using server-side sorting and filtering to manage large datasets efficiently.

Instructions

Query table data with server-side sorting and filtering. UI-only tool for performance with large datasets.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "query_table_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sortBy`	No
`filters`	No
`page`	No
`pageSize`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.6.0Jun 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions server-side processing and UI-only nature, but fails to disclose authentication needs, idempotency, rate limits, or side effects. This is insufficient for a production tool.

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 extremely concise, consisting of just two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and adds only essential performance context. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain return format, filter syntax, sorting behavior, error handling, or pagination boundaries. The tool cannot be reliably invoked based solely on this description.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely hints at parameters via 'server-side sorting and filtering', but does not explain the sortBy array syntax, filter object structure, or pagination behavior. Parameter names are partially clear, but the description adds minimal value beyond schema.

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 tool's action ('Query table data') and key features ('server-side sorting and filtering'). It distinguishes itself from sibling display tools by explicitly noting it is a 'UI-only tool for performance with large datasets', making its purpose distinct.

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 description implies usage context by mentioning 'performance with large datasets', but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or exclude cases. Sibling tools are display-focused, so the usage is somewhat inferred, but lacks explicit guidance.

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

Deploy Server