mcp-data-analysis-agent

by hassanvfx

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

preflight

Validate project source configuration without exposing its URL, ensuring correctness while keeping the address private.

Instructions

Validate this project's source configuration without revealing its URL.

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": "preflight"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the validation behavior and explicitly guarantees URL non-disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it modifies configuration), but the term 'preflight' suggests read-only validation.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It delivers the core purpose and a key constraint efficiently.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the absence of parameters and the simple nature of the tool, the description provides sufficient context. It explains what the tool does and highlights a critical behavioral guarantee; no additional information is needed for basic usage.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to describe. The baseline score of 4 is applied, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none exists.

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 function: validating the project's source configuration. It also specifies a distinctive constraint (without revealing its URL), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_and_execute or explain_sql.

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 implies appropriate usage by highlighting the privacy aspect ('without revealing its URL'), suggesting this tool is preferred when URL confidentiality is required. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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