la_datasetsSearch the Los Angeles open-data catalogue (data.lacity.org) for datasets by keyword. Returns dataset names, descriptions, and Socrata resource ids to use with la_query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max datasets (1-100, default 20). | |
| query | No | Keyword(s), e.g. "parking", "budget", "tree". | |
| offset | No | Offset for paging. | |
| _apiKey | No | Optional — your own Socrata app token for higher rate limits. Omit to use the keyless endpoint. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-data-la-api-key",
+ "query": "parking"
+ },
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-data-la-api-key",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "tree maintenance"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's burden is lower. It adds context about the endpoint and keyless option but no contradictions.
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, front-loaded with key information, no wasted words.
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?
For a simple search tool with no output schema, the description covers the return fields, endpoint, and relationship to la_query. Missing explicit pagination details, but offset parameter is documented in schema.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the endpoint and return format, but the parameter descriptions in the schema are already clear.
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 'Los Angeles open-data catalogue', and the outcome: returns dataset names, descriptions, and Socrata resource ids. It also distinguishes from sibling tool la_query by mentioning the ids are for use with that tool.
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 this tool: to find datasets before querying data with la_query. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling context and the mention of 'use with la_query' provide sufficient guidance.
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.