tableau-mcp-navi

get_view_data

Retrieve underlying data from a Tableau view by providing its view ID. Optionally set a maximum number of rows to return results as a markdown table.

Instructions

Get the underlying data from a view.

Args: view_id: The ID of the view max_rows: Maximum rows to return (default 100)

Returns: View data in markdown table format

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": {
      "view_id": "<view_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_view_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`view_id`	Yes
`max_rows`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description states it returns data in markdown table format and mentions default max_rows, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, safe to call repeatedly, or if there are any side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden but misses explicit safety context.

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, using only three lines to convey the purpose, parameters, and return format. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, known return format) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality. However, it lacks context about performance implications or pagination for large views, which would make it more complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining both parameters (view_id and max_rows) and the default for max_rows. While it adds meaning, it does not provide extra details like formatting or constraints beyond the schema's basic structure.

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 it retrieves the underlying data from a view, differentiating it from sibling tools like 'get_view' which likely return metadata. The verb 'Get' and resource 'data from a view' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_view' or other data retrieval tools. The description lacks context for selection and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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