get_datasetFull record for one dataset: fields with descriptions, record and state counts, coverage, advertised refresh cadence AND the real last-modified date of the file, FAQs, sample URL and the dataset's page on locationlists.com.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Dataset slug from search_datasets, e.g. bobcat-dealers |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by distinguishing the 'advertised refresh cadence' from 'the real last-modified date of the file', signaling a freshness-discrepancy nuance an agent would otherwise not know.
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 front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited inventory of return contents. No redundant or filler text; every clause identifies a distinct piece of the returned record.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned record's components, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether this tool answers its question. Only minor gaps remain (error/not-found behavior, pagination is not relevant here).
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?
Only one parameter, with 100% schema description coverage and an example in the schema ('bobcat-dealers'). The description does not elaborate on the slug beyond 'one dataset', so it neither adds nor detracts; the baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies.
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 specific resource (one dataset) and enumerates the exact contents of the returned record (fields, counts, coverage, refresh cadence vs. last-modified, FAQs, sample URL, page URL). This clearly separates it from list-style siblings like search_datasets, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The only workflow hint ('slug from search_datasets') lives in the input schema, not the description, so the agent gets no routing help from the text itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.