recently_changed_packagesNew Zealand open data catalogue (data.govt.nz CKAN) — datasets most recently created or updated, paginated by limit/offset. Use to monitor NZ government open data activity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of items returned. | |
| items | Yes | Recently changed/updated datasets |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, establishing safety. The description adds behavioral context by noting pagination via limit/offset and the 'most recently created or updated' ordering, which are not captured in the schema or 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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the data source and core function, then adds a use case. Every clause earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 simple read-only nature, the presence of an output schema, and robust annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, source, pagination, and use case. It is complete 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?
The input schema has no descriptions for limit and offset (0% coverage), so the description's phrase 'paginated by limit/offset' provides essential meaning for both parameters. However, it does not elaborate on details like default values, maximum limits, or exact semantics of offset, leaving some ambiguity.
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 identifies the tool's function: listing datasets most recently created or updated in the New Zealand open data catalogue. It specifies the resource (data.govt.nz CKAN) and the pagination mechanism, which distinguishes it from generic package listing tools like package_list.
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 provides a clear use case: 'Use to monitor NZ government open data activity.' While it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, the intended context is well-defined and sufficient for selecting the tool.
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.
Tools span multiple unrelated domains (NZ open data, prediction markets, npm scanning, AI visibility, etc.). Within each domain, some tools are similar (e.g., multiple polymarket tools, multiple ask_pipeworx variants). The wide scope makes it hard for an agent to know which tool to use.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: some use snake_case (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), some use underscore verbs (group_list, package_search), some are descriptive phrases (generate_llms_txt, scan_competitor_ai_presence). No clear pattern.
41 tools is high for a server named 'Data Govt Nz' but includes many unrelated tools (Polymarket, npm, AI visibility). The scope is sprawling; many tools seem extraneous to the core purpose.
The NZ open data portion is fairly complete (CRUD for groups, organizations, packages, tags), but other areas have only one or two tools (e.g., npm scanning, AI visibility). The overall surface is incomplete for a coherent domain.