Finland Statistics MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing behavioral: it doesn't say the operation is read-only, what happens if selections are invalid, whether large results are truncated, or what the response looks like. Only the wire format of one parameter is explained.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one piece of format detail that matters. Nothing is padded, though the brevity partly reflects missing content rather than discipline.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and a required table parameter that is never described. For a data-retrieval tool with an untyped JSON-string parameter, the description leaves the agent without enough to call it correctly or to predict what comes back.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain that 'selections' is a JSON object mapping variable codes to arrays of values, which is genuinely useful, but the required 'table' parameter is left completely undefined (its format, where to obtain valid IDs).

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?

States a verb ('Retrieve') and an object ('selected values'), but never says from what — the 'table' parameter and the tool name's subject are absent from the prose. An agent must infer that it pulls table data given a table identifier, which is a vague rather than a specific purpose statement.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_table_metadata or list_tables, no prerequisites, and no mention that metadata should be fetched first to learn valid variable codes. The agent gets no routing signal at all.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. "Get" implies a read operation, but the description says nothing about permissions, side effects, rate limits, or what the response contains.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasteful wording. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to the missing detail captured in other dimensions.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool confidently. It does not explain how to specify the table or what metadata structure to expect.

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 single required parameter ("table") has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain its expected format, valid values, or identifier semantics. The word "table" appears only as the resource, not as parameter guidance.

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 uses a clear verb ("Get") and names the resource and the fields returned ("table dimensions and available selections"). It does not differentiate this tool from the sibling get_table_data or list_tables, which caps it below 5.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling tools get_table_data or list_tables. The purpose implies it is for metadata, but usage is not stated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about read-only behavior, permissions, pagination, result size, or what the browse operation returns. "Browse" weakly implies a non-mutating traversal, which is the only behavioral clue offered.

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 a single short, front-loaded phrase with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than efficient — brevity here costs the agent essential information about the required path argument.

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 tool with a mandatory, undocumented parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the path format and roughly what a listing returns. Neither is present, so an agent cannot reliably invoke this tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single required parameter `path` is completely unexplained in both schema and description. The words "categories and tables" hint that path is a hierarchical category path, but the agent gets no format, root value, or example to construct a valid call.

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?

"Browse Finnish statistics categories and tables" names a resource domain, but "browse" is vague about the actual operation and the phrase conflates categories with tables, leaving it unclear whether the tool returns categories, tables, or both. It gives no explicit differentiation from the siblings get_table_data and get_table_metadata.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_table_data or get_table_metadata, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only implicit signal is that listing presumably precedes fetching metadata or data.

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