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

@takeokunn/metabase-mcp

by takeokunn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

pivot_dashcard_query

Execute a pivot query for a specific dashcard in Metabase by providing dashboard, dashcard, and card IDs, along with optional parameters.

Instructions

Run a pivot query for a specific dashcard 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": "pivot_dashcard_query"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should convey behavioral traits like read-only, permissions, or result limitations. It only says 'run a pivot query' without mentioning side effects, safety, or performance implications.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single-sentence description is concise and front-loads the core purpose. However, it is too brief given the tool's complexity; a few additional phrases would improve completeness without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

The description omits what the query output contains, how to interpret results, or how parameters affect the pivot. Given the nested input schema and lack of output schema, this is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 description adds no parameter explanation beyond the input schema's minimal field descriptions (e.g., 'The card ID'). Since schema coverage is 0% (no tool-level param docs), the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description merely confirms the tool's purpose without enriching parameter understanding.

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 ('Run') and the resource ('pivot query for a specific dashcard in Metabase'), distinguishing it from non-pivot variants like 'run_dashcard_query'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, losing a point.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., 'run_dashcard_query' or 'execute_card_pivot'). No prerequisites or context about dashboard/card relationships are provided.

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