Data File Analysis MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": false
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| summarize_csv_fileA | Summarize a CSV file by reporting its number of rows and columns. Args: filename: Name of the CSV file in the /data directory (e.g., 'sample.csv') Returns: A string describing the file's dimensions. |
| summarize_parquet_fileB | Summarize a Parquet file by reporting its number of rows and columns. Args: filename: Name of the Parquet file in the /data directory (e.g., 'sample.parquet') Returns: A string describing the file's dimensions. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools are clearly distinct by file type (Parquet vs CSV), so an agent should be able to tell them apart when the file format is known. However, they share the identical purpose and structure (summarizing file dimensions), and there is no unified or generic tool to handle either format, which could cause confusion if an agent must guess the format.
Both tools follow the same verb_noun pattern (summarize_parquet_file, summarize_csv_file), sharing the identical 'summarize' verb and 'file' suffix. The only variation is the file format in the middle, which is consistent and predictable, though the format should ideally be a parameter rather than baked into the tool name.
With only 2 tools, this sits at the boundary of 'too few.' It's not a single trivial tool, but two near-identical tools covering only file summarization feels thin for a 'Data File Analysis' server, which implies a much broader analysis scope than just counting rows and columns.
For a server named 'Data File Analysis,' this surface is severely limited: there is no way to read, sample, filter, compute statistics, inspect columns/types, or join files. Even for a narrow summarization-only scope, neither tool supports inspecting column schemas or data previews, leaving significant gaps that will cause agent failures for common analysis tasks.