Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
csv-mcp

csv-mcp

by meysam-kazemi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

compare_csv

Compare two CSV files by matching rows on unique key columns and identifying differences.

Instructions

Compare two CSV files by unique key columns.

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": {
      "left_path": "<left_path>",
      "right_path": "<right_path>",
      "key_columns": "<key_columns>"
    },
    "name": "compare_csv"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
optionsNo
left_pathYes
right_pathYes
key_columnsYes
sample_limitNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication. It only states 'compare' without indicating side effects or access needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (one short sentence). While not verbose, it is under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters and no schema descriptions. Conciseness is good, but at the cost of clarity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (comparing two CSV files with key columns) and the presence of an output schema, the description should at least hint at the output format or comparison logic. It fails to provide enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema parameter description coverage is 0% (none of the main parameters have descriptions). The description only clarifies 'key_columns' by mentioning 'unique key columns'. It does not explain 'left_path', 'right_path', 'sample_limit', or 'options', leaving the agent guessing.

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 clearly states the action (compare) and resource (CSV files) with the method (by unique key columns). This distinguishes it from siblings like merge_csv or validate_csv, but lacks specificity on the output (e.g., differences or summary).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, excluded scenarios, or comparison with sibling tools like merge_csv or validate_csv.

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