get_coverage_statusUse this free operational tool to decide whether available public-data coverage is sufficient or whether to request a missing capability. Returns discovery, materialization, queryable-row, queue, failure, and freshness counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the output categories it returns (discovery, materialization, queryable-row, queue, failure, freshness), which is especially useful given there is no output schema. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the use case and key positioning ('free operational'), the second lists the returned metrics. No redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless status tool, the description provides the purpose and a summary of the returned counts. It does not detail the format of each count or a formal schema, but given the low complexity and helpful annotations, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly focuses on purpose and output. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: get public-data coverage status. It also explains the decision this tool enables ('decide whether available public-data coverage is sufficient or whether to request a missing capability') and names the returned metrics, making its purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like request_capability or get_materialization_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description tells the agent when to use this tool: when evaluating whether coverage is sufficient or a capability is missing. It also signals that it is 'free operational', implying it should be used before paid or request-based alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target clearly distinct actions and states, such as searching, sampling, querying, materializing, or requesting paid access. The main ambiguity is between search_public_datasets and search_discovered_datasets, which both search catalog metadata and differ mainly in scope and materialization-state reporting.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, using clear verbs like list, search, sample, query, request, get, and aggregate. The naming makes the action and subject predictable across the entire set.
With 14 tools, the server covers distinct stages of a coherent workflow: discovery, materialization, status polling, sampling, querying, aggregation, coverage checking, and paid access. Each tool addresses a meaningful step without excessive redundancy.
The tool surface covers the full discovery-to-paid-query lifecycle for imported government datasets and includes dedicated Federal Register access. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit dataset-detail or payment-status tool, but agents can work around these using list/search and request_paid_access.