Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wrds

wrds

by hosseinzk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

query

Run read-only SELECT statements on WRDS data, returning up to 500 rows as CSV; access is limited to libraries allowed by the WRDS AI policy.

Instructions

Run a read-only SELECT and return up to limit rows (max 500) as CSV. Only allowed when every referenced library is AI-allowed under the WRDS policy.

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": {
      "sql": "<sql>"
    },
    "name": "query"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sqlYes
limitNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: read-only, a hard 500-row ceiling, CSV output, and a policy gate on referenced libraries. It omits error behavior (e.g. whether exceeding 500 errors or clamps) and any rate-limit or permission detail.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the operational facts (read-only, row cap, CSV) are front-loaded ahead of the policy caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained further, and the description already covers the essentials for a query tool. The remaining gap is the undocumented sql parameter contract and ambiguous overflow behavior past the 500-row cap.

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 0%, so both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description rescues 'limit' by supplying the 500 max that the schema lacks, but says nothing about the required 'sql' parameter's dialect, allowed statements, or format. Partial compensation only.

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 and resource ('Run a read-only SELECT'), the return shape ('up to limit rows as CSV'), and the scope constraint (max 500). It is distinguishable from export_query and list_tables at a glance, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary.

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?

It gives one hard precondition ('only allowed when every referenced library is AI-allowed under the WRDS policy'), which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over export_query, or what to do for larger result sets, leaving the main routing decision to inference.

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