dataset_provenanceThe source, the date it was computed, the licence and the citation for the Sowbird 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It signals a non-mutating metadata lookup ('Read this') and discloses the exact content returned. It does not describe output format or any side effects, but for a zero-parameter provenance tool this is a minor omission rather than a transparency failure.
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?
A single well-structured sentence, preceded by a clear title, front-loads the attribution use case and wastes no words. Every part of the description adds information an agent needs.
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?
The tool is simple: no parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low complexity. The description enumerates the returned provenance fields and states why the agent would invoke it. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.
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 accepts zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The input schema already shows an empty object, and the description has no parameters to explain.
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 identifies a specific resource (the Sowbird dataset) and enumerates exactly what it returns: source, computed date, licence, and citation. The phrase 'Read this to attribute a figure correctly' makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinguishes it from structural/statistical siblings like dataset_columns and dataset_stats.
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 gives an explicit use case: attribute a figure correctly. It does not enumerate when not to use it or name alternatives, but no sibling appears to serve a provenance/citation role, so the guidance is clear enough without exclusions.
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 targets a distinct query mode: schema, provenance, exact lookup, substring search, multi-value comparison, numeric stats, and top/bottom rows. The descriptions clearly differentiate row/compare/search, though row and compare have some conceptual overlap.
All tool names follow the same `dataset_` prefix followed by a noun (columns, compare, provenance, row, search, stats, top), creating a predictable and consistent naming pattern.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a read-only dataset exploration server. Each tool serves a unique purpose with no redundancy, covering schema, metadata, lookup, search, comparison, statistics, and ranking.
The set covers schema, provenance, exact and substring search, comparisons, summary stats, and extremes, which handles most dataset Q&A needs. Minor gaps like group-by aggregation or pagination are not critical for the apparent purpose.