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

@takeokunn/metabase-mcp

by takeokunn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_embed_card_tile

Retrieve a map tile for an embedded Metabase card by specifying token, zoom level, and tile coordinates (x, y).

Instructions

Get a map tile for an embedded card 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": "get_embed_card_tile"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'get a map tile' without noting that it is read-only, what the output format is (likely an image), validation constraints on parameters, or error conditions. The required 'token' parameter is unexplained.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points, usage hints). It is under-informative for a tool with multiple required, non-obvious parameters.

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 (four parameters with geographic semantics), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain map tile conventions, coordinate system, expected return type, or error handling. The agent is left with significant ambiguity.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation for any of the four parameters (token, zoom, x, y). The agent must infer meaning solely from names, which is insufficient for correct invocation (e.g., tile coordinate system, zoom range, token source).

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 states the specific resource ('map tile for an embedded card') and action ('get'), but does not differentiate from siblings like get_preview_embed_card_tile or get_card_tile. It is clear on its own but lacks distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_card_tile, get_public_card_tile). There are no prerequisites, context descriptions, or exclusions. The agent receives no situational advice.

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