@takeokunn/metabase-mcp

export_card_query

Export a saved Metabase question's query results as CSV, JSON, XLSX, or PDF. Specify the card ID and format to retrieve data.

Instructions

Export a card (saved question) query result in a specified format (csv, json, xlsx, pdf) in Metabase

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": {
      "input": "<input>"
    },
    "name": "export_card_query"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool exports a result, omitting details about authentication needs, potential side effects (e.g., triggering a download), error cases, or the response format. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate tool behavior.

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 exceptionally concise: one sentence of 14 words. It front-loads the key action and resource, and every word is necessary. No extraneous information or fluff.

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 tool's simplicity and the rich sibling context, the description is minimally adequate. It correctly identifies the resource but does not help the agent distinguish among many similar export tools. Missing details like whether this is for private or public cards, or how the result is returned, reduce completeness.

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?

The input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (id and export_format). The description merely repeats the enum values for export_format, adding no new semantic information. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (Export), the resource (a card/saved question query result), and the available formats (csv, json, xlsx, pdf). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling export tools like export_dashboard_card_query or export_query, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a valid card ID or appropriate permissions. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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

Deploy Server