Metadata
metadataGet a NYC Open Data dataset's schema + metadata (columns, types, row count, category, last-updated) by resource_id, e.g. "8wbx-tsch".
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource_id | Yes | Dataset id, e.g. "8wbx-tsch". |
metadataGet a NYC Open Data dataset's schema + metadata (columns, types, row count, category, last-updated) by resource_id, e.g. "8wbx-tsch".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource_id | Yes | Dataset id, e.g. "8wbx-tsch". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "resource_id": "8wbx-tsch"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. Description adds that it returns schema/metadata, but does not disclose further behavioral traits beyond the annotations.
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?
Single sentence with all essential information: verb, resource, outputs, and example. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose.
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 a single parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately lists return fields. Slightly incomplete on potential error cases or limits, but sufficient for a straightforward metadata lookup.
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% for the single parameter 'resource_id', with both schema description and tool description providing example value. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond a repetition of the example.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'a NYC Open Data dataset's schema + metadata', listing specific fields (columns, types, row count, etc.). It differentiates from siblings like 'datasets' and 'query' by focusing on metadata retrieval.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools include query and datasets, but no comparison or condition for selection is provided.
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.