organization_listChilean open data catalogue (datos.gob.cl CKAN) — list Chilean government organizations that publish datasets. Pass all_fields=true to return names and descriptions instead of just IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| all_fields | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 the tool safe (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the effect of all_fields=true (returns names and descriptions instead of just IDs) and the default output behavior. This goes 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?
The description is a single concise sentence plus a helpful tip about all_fields. Every word earns its place, and the main purpose is front-loaded.
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 list operation and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the non-obvious parameter behavior. It does not detail pagination, but the schema's limit/offset parameters suffice for basic understanding.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains all_fields but does not explain limit or offset, though their names are relatively self-explanatory. Partial compensation is provided, so a middle score is appropriate.
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 function: listing Chilean government organizations from the datos.gob.cl CKAN catalogue. The verb 'list' and specific resource 'organizations' distinguish it from sibling tools like organization_show or group_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 implies this tool is for listing organizations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as organization_show for detailed organization info. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
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.