datasetsSearch the Orlando 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. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "crime"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 10,
+ "offset": 0,
+ "query": "budget"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, making the safety profile clear. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context: it reveals the return fields (resource_id, name, description, category, update date) and hints at the next step. No contradictions exist, but the description does not significantly deepen transparency 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?
Two sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose and scope; the second provides actionable detail about return fields and next steps. Every word serves a 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?
For a simple search tool with three documented parameters, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the return fields and downstream usage. The only minor gap is not describing pagination behavior (though offset is documented in schema). The openWorldHint suggests partial results, which is implied.
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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description enhances understanding by explaining what the query parameter does (search dataset titles/descriptions) and giving examples (crime, budget, health). It also indirectly clarifies limit and offset through examples. This adds practical context without repeating schema details.
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 it searches an Orlando Open Data catalog by keyword, specifying the verb 'search' and the resource 'datasets'. It differentiates from siblings by mentioning the next step of passing resource_id to query/metadata, which is a distinct downstream action not implied by other sibling tools.
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 implicitly suggests when to use (when needing to find datasets by keyword) and what to do after (pass resource_id to query/metadata). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for related tasks (e.g., query vs. search). The guidance is functional but lacks explicit exclusions or sibling differentiation.
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 clusters overlap in purpose: ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_beta / ask_pipeworx_grounded / deep_research all answer factual questions, and the six Polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread, bet_research) have subtle boundaries even with detailed descriptions. The descriptions are strong, but an agent must read carefully to reliably pick the right tool.
Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim) with recognizable family prefixes (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, ask_pipeworx_*). Minor deviations like single-noun names (datasets, metadata, query) and mixed lookup verbs (ask vs query vs search vs discover) keep it from a 5.
34 tools is heavy for a single server, and the scope sprawls across general data routing, prediction-market analytics, memory management, subscription bookkeeping, AI visibility checks, and npm dependency scanning. The families are organized, but the count exceeds the 25-tool threshold and would be better split into focused servers.
For a data-research server, coverage is broad: universal routing, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, change feeds, claim verification, dataset search/query/metadata, subscriptions, and memory. Minor gaps exist—no subscription update operation and no full-catalog browse beyond search—but agents can work around them.