Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@takeokunn/metabase-mcp

@takeokunn/metabase-mcp

by takeokunn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

export_dashboard_card_query

Export a Metabase dashboard card query result in CSV, JSON, XLSX, or PDF format for external use.

Instructions

Export a dashcard 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_dashboard_card_query"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning authentication requirements, side effects, return type (e.g., file), error behavior, or idempotency, which is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 very concise at one sentence, but it lacks structure (e.g., separating purpose, parameters, behavior). It omits necessary details, making it under-specified for the tool's complexity (nested input, multiple required fields).

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 (nested parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description should explain return value (e.g., file download) and context among similar siblings. It only covers a fraction of needed information, leaving the agent ill-equipped.

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 (with 0% description coverage) already describes parameters, but the tool description adds no semantic value beyond redundantly listing export formats. It fails to explain how the nested input object works or the relationship between parameters, offering minimal aid to an agent.

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 exports a dashcard query result in specific formats (csv, json, xlsx, pdf). However, it fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'export_dashcard_query', which shares an almost identical name and purpose, leading to potential confusion.

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 like 'export_card_query' or 'export_dashcard_query'. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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