SiteCheck Company Records

Australian government open datasets from data.gov.au

gov_australia_data_gov_au

Read-only

Australian government open datasets from data.gov.au (CKAN API): title, publisher, licence, last modified date, number of resources and dataset link, for a search term. Catalogue metadata only, not the data files. Related tools on this server, for a different need: gov_data_gov_uk when you need UK government open datasets from the data.gov.uk catalogue; gov_dati_gov_it_italy_open_data when you need Italian open government datasets from dati.gov.it: title. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "gov_australia_data_gov_au"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	Yes	Search text, 2 to 80 characters
`rows`	No	Datasets to return, 1 to 10 (default 5)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	No
`source`	No
`datasets`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`totalDatasets`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: cost of $0.002 USDC per successful call, x402 payment rails (Base, Solana, Arc), and that failed calls are not charged. It does not discuss rate limits or result ordering, which keeps it below a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by scope boundary, alternatives, and pricing — a sensible order with no filler. The final pricing/alternatives sentence is dense and multi-clause, which costs it a point but not readability.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return-value detail is unnecessary, and annotations plus the description together cover safety, scope, cost, and alternatives. The only gap an agent might still wonder about is result ordering or paging beyond the small rows cap, which is minor for this tool's complexity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (q, rows) carry their own constraints and defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only implies that q is a 'search term' and adds no syntax, matching, or pagination nuance for rows, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource (search Australian government open datasets from data.gov.au via CKAN) plus an explicit enumeration of returned fields (title, publisher, licence, last modified, resource count, link) and a scope boundary ('Catalogue metadata only, not the data files'). It also names the sibling tools it is not, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description routes to alternatives explicitly: gov_data_gov_uk 'when you need UK government open datasets' and gov_dati_gov_it_italy_open_data 'when you need Italian open government datasets', each tied to a condition. It also states a when-not ('Catalogue metadata only, not the data files'), leaving little to inference.

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

All SiteCheck Company Records 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?