Skip to main content
Glama
reading-plus-ai

mcp-server-data-exploration

by reading-plus-ai
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: load_csv is for loading CSV files into DataFrames, while run_script is for executing Python scripts for data analytics tasks. There is no overlap in functionality, and an agent would easily distinguish between them.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools use snake_case naming, which is consistent, but they follow different patterns: load_csv uses a verb_noun format, while run_script uses verb_noun as well but with a more generic noun. This minor deviation keeps it mostly consistent but not perfectly aligned.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels severely under-scoped for data exploration. Key operations like data transformation, filtering, aggregation, or visualization are missing, making it incomplete for typical data analysis workflows.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is highly incomplete for data exploration. It covers only loading data and running scripts, with no tools for common tasks like data cleaning, analysis, or exporting results. This will likely cause agent failures when trying to perform comprehensive data exploration.

  • Average 3.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 0 of 2 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the automatic naming behavior when df_name is omitted, which is helpful. However, it doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like error handling, file format requirements, memory implications, or what happens if the CSV path is invalid.

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

    Conciseness4/5

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

    The description is well-structured with clear sections (Purpose, Usage Notes) and uses bullet points efficiently. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

    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?

    For a data loading tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a DataFrame is in this context, what the tool returns, error conditions, or file format requirements. The description should provide more complete operational context.

    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?

    With 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description partially compensates by explaining the df_name parameter's behavior when omitted, but doesn't clarify csv_path requirements or format. It adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

    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 tool's purpose as 'Load a local CSV file into a DataFrame' with specific verb ('Load') and resource ('CSV file'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'run_script', which appears unrelated but could potentially handle similar data operations.

    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?

    The description provides implied usage guidance through the 'Usage Notes' section about automatic naming when df_name isn't provided. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites for successful operation.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: output is displayed as stdout, optional saving of DataFrames in memory, and prohibitions on overwriting original DataFrames and creating charts. This covers execution behavior, memory handling, and constraints, though it doesn't address error handling, performance limits, or security aspects.

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

    Conciseness4/5

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

    The description is well-structured with clear sections ('Purpose', 'Allowed Actions', 'Prohibited Actions'), making it easy to scan. It's appropriately sized without unnecessary fluff, though the 'Purpose' section could be more concise. Every sentence adds value, such as clarifying output behavior and constraints.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    Given the complexity of a script execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers execution purpose, allowed/prohibited actions, and some parameter context, but lacks details on error handling, return values, or integration with the sibling tool. For a tool with 2 parameters and significant behavioral implications, more completeness is needed.

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

    Parameters2/5

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

    The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'save_to_memory' in the 'Allowed Actions' section, adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain the 'script' parameter's content or format, leaving a key parameter undocumented. With 2 parameters and low coverage, the description only partially compensates.

    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 tool's purpose as 'Execute Python scripts for specific data analytics tasks,' providing a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('Python scripts'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'load_csv' by focusing on script execution rather than data loading. However, it doesn't specify what 'specific data analytics tasks' entail, keeping it slightly vague.

    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?

    The description provides implied usage guidance through 'Allowed Actions' and 'Prohibited Actions' sections, suggesting when to use certain features like saving DataFrames and when to avoid actions like chart generation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'load_csv' or other alternatives, and doesn't mention prerequisites or specific contexts for use.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mcp-server-data-exploration MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-server-data-exploration MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/reading-plus-ai/mcp-server-data-exploration'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server