Skip to main content
Glama
tofunori

Claude MCP Data Explorer

by tofunori
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one loads CSV data into a DataFrame, while the other executes JavaScript scripts for analysis and visualization. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools use a verb-noun pattern (load-csv, run-script), which is consistent and readable. The hyphenated style is maintained throughout, though the specific convention (hyphens vs. underscores) is less important than the consistency, which is good here with only minor deviations from common patterns.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for a 'Data Explorer' purpose, as it lacks essential operations like data querying, filtering, transformation, or exporting. While the tools are functional, the count is too low to adequately cover the expected scope of data exploration and analysis.

    Completeness2/5

    For a data exploration server, there are significant gaps: no tools for querying data, filtering, aggregating, visualizing beyond scripts, or exporting results. The surface is severely incomplete, as agents cannot perform basic data exploration tasks without relying heavily on external scripts, leading to potential failures in common workflows.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'load a CSV file into a DataFrame' but lacks details on permissions needed, error handling (e.g., invalid paths), rate limits, or what happens after loading (e.g., memory usage, persistence). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

    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 that front-loads the core action ('Load a CSV file') and purpose ('for analysis'). There is zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

    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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that performs data loading (a potentially complex operation with file I/O), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error conditions, return values, or dependencies, leaving gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly in varied contexts.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (csv_path and df_name) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying CSV loading for analysis, which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide extra syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

    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 verb 'load' and resource 'CSV file', specifying it's for analysis via a DataFrame. It distinguishes from the sibling 'run-script' by focusing on data loading rather than script execution. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential other data loading tools (none listed), keeping it at 4.

    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. The description implies it's for loading CSV files into DataFrames, but there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., file accessibility), when not to use it (e.g., for non-CSV files), or alternatives like 'run-script' for other data processing. This leaves usage context vague.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool executes a JavaScript script but doesn't describe safety aspects (e.g., sandboxing, permissions), performance traits (e.g., execution time limits, resource usage), or what happens upon execution (e.g., output format, side effects). For a tool that runs arbitrary code with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

    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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part contributing essential information (verb, resource, domain).

    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 executing arbitrary JavaScript code, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like security implications, error handling, or what the tool returns (e.g., visualization output, analysis results). For a tool with such potential impact, more context is needed.

    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 has 100% description coverage, with one parameter 'script' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples of script content, no constraints on JavaScript features). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

    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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('JavaScript script'), and specifies the domain ('for data analysis and visualization'). It doesn't distinguish from the sibling tool 'load-csv', which appears to be a different operation, so it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings.

    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. It mentions the domain (data analysis and visualization) but doesn't specify prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. There's no explicit comparison with the sibling tool 'load-csv' or other potential tools.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

claude-mcp-data-explorer MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

claude-mcp-data-explorer MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tofunori/claude-mcp-data-explorer'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server