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

@takeokunn/metabase-mcp

by takeokunn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_xray_entity_compare

Compare two Metabase entities with an x-ray dashboard to analyze differences. Identify patterns and insights between tables, segments, fields, metrics, or cards.

Instructions

Get a comparison x-ray automagic dashboard for an entity 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_xray_entity_compare"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not explain what an x-ray dashboard is, side effects (likely read-only), required permissions, or that it compares two entities. The term 'automagic' is informal and uninformative.

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?

One sentence is concise but at the expense of clarity. It lacks structure and key details, making it insufficient for proper tool selection.

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

Completeness1/5

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

No output schema and no annotations put full burden on the description. It fails to explain return value, comparison logic, or differentiate from many sibling get_xray tools. Extremely incomplete for the complexity.

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?

The description adds no information about the parameters. The schema has 0% coverage (top-level 'input' lacks description) and the description does not compensate by explaining the required entity, comparison_entity, and their IDs.

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 mentions 'comparison x-ray' and 'dashboard', indicating a comparable dashboard, but fails to clarify that it compares two entities. The phrase 'for an entity' is ambiguous given the tool's name implies a comparison.

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 on when to use this tool over siblings like get_xray_entity or get_xray_entity_cell_compare. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or alternatives.

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