DatoQA

get_historical_indicators

Read-onlyIdempotent

Annual historical series for one World Bank country and indicator from 1960 to the last completed year. Use list_historical_indicators for keys and list_countries for countries. Choose GDP per capita, current dollars or constant 2015 dollars explicitly; these are not interchangeable. Nulls are missing, not zero. Provenance and original definitions included; not independently verified.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	No	Inclusive last observation year, no later than the last completed calendar year. Available data may end earlier.
`from`	No	Inclusive first observation year, at least 1960 and no later than to.
`country`	Yes	World Bank three-character economy code from list_countries, for example USA or FRA.
`language`	No	Response metadata language: en or fr; original definitions and source notes are preserved.	en
`indicator`	Yes	Annual series key from list_historical_indicators, for example gdp_per_capita; inspect units before comparing.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`items`	Yes
`notice`	No
`status`	Yes	Read this before using values; a successful transport does not establish data availability.
`returned`	Yes	Domain-specific result count, not necessarily the number of stored records in items.
`directory`	No
`independently_verified`	No	Official-source checks are not independent factual corroboration.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 27, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / items / items / properties / provenance / properties / verification_level / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "official_source_and_schema_checked",
-  "method_specific"
-]New value: +[
+  "official_source_and_schema_checked",
+  "public_aggregator_and_schema_checked",
+  "method_specific"
+]

First observedSep 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them usefully by declaring that nulls mean missing rather than zero, that provenance and original definitions are included, and that the data is not independently verified — real caveats an agent needs. It stops short of describing pagination or truncation behavior.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying distinct payload (scope, prerequisites, unit warning, data caveats), with the core capability front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be restated, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies the remaining essentials: prerequisite keys, unit discipline, and null/provenance caveats. Nothing required to call it correctly is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and enum descriptions already cover most parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by adding unit semantics not present in the schema — that current-dollar and constant-2015-dollar GDP figures are not interchangeable and must be chosen explicitly.

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?

Names a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (annual historical series for one World Bank country and indicator) with an explicit temporal scope of 1960 to the last completed year. It is clearly distinct from the list_* siblings it references, but it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like get_economic_indicators or get_indicators, leaving that inference to the agent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete routing guidance ('Use list_historical_indicators for keys and list_countries for countries'), which names the prerequisite tools and the ordering. It also warns about non-interchangeable unit choices. What's missing is any when-not-to-use guidance relative to the similarly named indicator siblings.

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

All DatoQA tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?