datasetsSearch the NYC Open Data catalog of open datasets by keyword. Returns each dataset's resource_id, name, description, category and update date — pass the resource_id to query/metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max datasets (1-100, default 20). | |
| query | No | Keyword to search dataset titles/descriptions (e.g. "budget", "crime", "health"). | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds context about output fields and relation to metadata tool, but no further behavioral details like pagination behavior or rate limits.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no extraneous information.
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?
Given the schema covers all parameters and annotations are present, the description sufficiently outlines return fields and hints at next steps. It lacks explicit pagination description but is adequate for the tool's complexity.
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 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clearly states the verb (search), the resource (NYC Open Data catalog), and the output fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying this unique scope.
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 implies when to use (when searching datasets by keyword) and provides a workflow hint (pass resource_id to query/metadata). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools.
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.
Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical routers, and the five polymarket_* tools all perform prediction-market analysis. Even with detailed descriptions, an agent could easily select the wrong one, especially since the server name 'NYC Open Data' does not hint at this focus.
Most tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_subscriptions, generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity) and families share prefixes like polymarket_ and pipeworx_. Minor deviations exist with one-word names like datasets, metadata, and forget, but overall the naming is readable and predictable.
34 tools is far too many for a server labeled 'NYC Open Data,' where only 3 tools (datasets, metadata, query) actually serve that purpose. The rest form a general-purpose data platform, but even then the count is high and includes many redundant meta-tools and overlapping Polymarket utilities, making the set feel bloated.
For the NYC Open Data domain, the three dedicated tools cover search, metadata, and query—adequate core functionality but missing export or dataset management capabilities. For the broader Pipeworx platform, coverage is strong (routing, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, subscriptions, memory), but the severe mismatch between the server name and actual scope leaves a major completeness gap.