@takeokunn/metabase-mcp

update_data_permissions

Modify data permissions for Metabase groups and databases by providing current revision and a permission mapping.

Instructions

Update the data permissions graph for groups and databases 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": "update_data_permissions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update' without indicating whether the operation replaces permissions, requires a correct revision, or has destructive consequences. The agent is uninformed about potential conflicts or authorization needs.

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 extremely concise (single sentence), which is efficient but omits critical details. It is front-loaded, but the trade-off reduces utility. Every sentence earns its place, but the overall brevity hurts comprehension.

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 complexity of the input schema (nested permissions graph) and the presence of sibling tools for reading or manipulating permissions, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the return value (no output schema) nor the relationship to other tools, leaving gaps for agent selection.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the top-level parameter ('input'), the tool description adds no additional meaning. The nested schema fields have some descriptions, but the tool description itself does not explain the parameters, revision number, or permission structure. This fails to compensate for the schema's coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Update the data permissions graph for groups and databases in Metabase' clearly states the action (update), the resource (data permissions graph), and the scope (groups and databases). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_data_permissions or update_permission_group.

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 (e.g., update_permission_group). It lacks prerequisites, side effects, or context for invocation, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server