dataset_provenanceThe source, the date it was computed, the licence and the citation for the Rebadgo dataset. Read this to attribute a figure correctly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses what information is returned (source, date computed, licence, citation) and frames the tool as a read-only informational resource. It does not detail return formatting or error behavior, but for a simple metadata retrieval tool this is sufficient.
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?
The description is concise, using two short sentences to convey purpose and use. No unnecessary words or redundant details are present.
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 parameterless provenance metadata tool, the description provides enough context: it names the exact fields returned and the practical reason to invoke the tool. No output schema is provided, but the listed content is sufficiently complete for the intended use.
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 no parameters, so there is no parameter schema to elaborate on. The description fully covers the tool's behavior without needing to explain parameter meanings.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: providing provenance information for the Rebadgo dataset, including source, date computed, licence, and citation. It also gives an actionable reason to use it ('Read this to attribute a figure correctly'), distinguishing it from the dataset-related sibling tools.
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 implies when to use the tool—when provenance or citation details are needed for attribution. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the intended use case is clear enough from the phrasing.
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.
Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: schema exploration, provenance, exact row lookup, substring search, aggregate stats, top/bottom rows, and value comparisons. Even the similar-looking row and search tools differ in exact match vs. substring match, so agents can reliably choose the right one.
All tools share the consistent prefix 'dataset_' followed by a single, descriptive word (columns, compare, provenance, row, search, stats, top). This uniform pattern makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate, satisfying the consistency requirement even though the suffix is not strictly verb_noun.
Seven tools is well within the ideal range and each one covers a distinct query type for the dataset domain. The count feels neither sparse nor bloated, and every tool has a clear use case.
The set covers metadata, provenance, exact/pattern matching, statistics, ordering, and comparative lookups, which handles most common dataset questions. A minor gap is the absence of a tool to retrieve the full dataset or list distinct values, but agents can work around these with existing tools.