Metadata
metadataGet a Winnipeg Open Data dataset's schema + metadata (columns, types, row count, category, last-updated) by resource_id, e.g. "d4mq-wa44".
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource_id | Yes | Dataset id, e.g. "d4mq-wa44". |
metadataGet a Winnipeg Open Data dataset's schema + metadata (columns, types, row count, category, last-updated) by resource_id, e.g. "d4mq-wa44".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource_id | Yes | Dataset id, e.g. "d4mq-wa44". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "resource_id": "d4mq-wa44"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds concrete return details (columns, types, row count) without contradicting 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, no filler, front-loaded with purpose and example. Every word earns its place.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains input and expected output, making it self-contained.
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 a clear description for resource_id. Description reinforces with an example, adding value 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?
Clearly states the tool retrieves schema and metadata for a dataset by resource_id, specifying return fields like columns, types, row count, etc. Distinct from 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?
Provides a specific use case and example parameter. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use, the narrow scope makes usage clear.
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.