datasetsSearch the Pennsylvania 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": "budget"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 10,
+ "offset": 0,
+ "query": "crime statistics"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral detail about return fields (resource_id, name, etc.) and a follow-up action (pass resource_id to query/metadata), which goes beyond annotations. 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?
Two concise sentences: first defines purpose, second details return values and usage hint. No fluff, every sentence adds value.
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?
The description fully covers the tool's functionality given rich annotations and complete schema. It explains the return data and next step, leaving no gaps for a search tool.
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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'keyword' for query) but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.
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 tool's action ('Search'), the resource ('Pennsylvania Open Data catalog of open datasets'), and the method ('by keyword'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying a unique data source.
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 indicates when to use (when searching PA open data) but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternative tools. It provides clear context for usage.
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 blur together: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical today), and ask_pipeworx_grounded share routing, while discover_tools/suggest_questions and the Polymarket edge/arbitrage/fill-risk tools have overlapping discovery purposes. Rich descriptions reduce some confusion, but an agent must read carefully to avoid misselection.
Most names are lowercase snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern: ask_pipeworx/beta/grounded and polymarket_* are domain-prefixed, entity_profile/recent_changes are noun phrases, and query/metadata/remember are bare verbs or nouns. The naming is still readable and subfamilies share prefixes, so it is mixed rather than chaotic.
34 tools is above the comfortable range for a single MCP server, and several could be folded together (the beta variant, visibility checks, and Polymarket scanners). The breadth reflects a large platform, but the surface feels heavy for an agent to select from confidently.
The query side is strong: PA Open Data has datasets/metadata/query coverage, and Pipeworx provides ask, deep_research, entity_profile, compare, recent_changes, validate_claim, plus subscriptions and memory with lifecycle coverage. Minor gaps: descriptions promise resolvable pipeworx:// citations but no resource/read tool is exposed, and there is no direct way to fetch an arbitrary record by citation.