profile_csvAnalyze a contact CSV export to get row counts, column fill rates, and detected mappings for name, email, phone, and company fields.
Row count, columns, fill rate per column and the detected name/email/phone/company mapping.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | Path to the CSV file |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only analysis operation by listing computed metrics, but does not explicitly state that the file is not modified, nor does it disclose any limitations (e.g., encoding assumptions, large-file performance, or the heuristic nature of the mapping detection). This is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core outputs and contains no filler. It conveys all essential information about what the tool returns in a highly efficient manner.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema, the description enumerates the return values (row count, columns, fill rate, mapping), which is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect. The main omission is any mention of error scenarios or assumptions about the input file format, but these are secondary for a straightforward profiling tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the single `file` parameter with a description ('Path to the CSV file'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Profile a CSV') and enumerates the exact outputs: row count, columns, fill rate, and detected name/email/phone/company mapping. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like dedupe_csv or compare_records, which focus on data cleaning or comparison rather than structural analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus find_duplicates, dedupe_csv, or compare_records. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or situations where a sibling would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.