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

@takeokunn/metabase-mcp

by takeokunn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

rescan_field_values

Refresh cached field values in Metabase by rescanning the database, ensuring up-to-date selectable options for filters and reports.

Instructions

Trigger a rescan of the cached values for a field 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": "rescan_field_values"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

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 fully disclose behavior. It only says 'trigger a rescan', which implies an action but does not clarify whether it modifies data, is idempotent, or has rate limits. The lack of detail on side effects makes it insufficient for safe invocation.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, so a short description is acceptable. However, the lack of output schema and absence of any return value explanation leaves the agent without knowledge of what to expect after invocation. This is adequate but incomplete.

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 includes a description 'Field ID' for the single parameter, providing basic meaning. However, the tool description adds no additional context beyond what the schema already supplies. With minimal schema coverage, a score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced semantics.

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 (trigger a rescan) and the resource (cached values for a field). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'discard_field_values' and 'rescan_database_values' by specifying the scope is a single field's cached values, but does not explicitly call out differences.

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 such as 'rescan_database_values' or 'search_field_values'. No prerequisites or side effects (e.g., performance impact, idempotency) are mentioned, leaving the AI without clear decision criteria.

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