datasetsSearch the Spanish open data portal (datos.gob.es) catalog by keyword, theme, or both; returns paginated dataset listings with title, publisher, and download links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| theme | No | ||
| page_size | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Current page number | |
| results | No | Array of dataset results | |
| pageSize | No | Results per page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "population"
+ },
+ {
+ "page": 1,
+ "page_size": 20,
+ "query": "economic indicators",
+ "theme": "economia"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Search results from datos.gob.es catalog",
+ "properties": {
+ "page": {
+ "description": "Current page number",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "pageSize": {
+ "description": "Results per page",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "results": {
+ "description": "Array of dataset results",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "description": {
+ "description": "Dataset description",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Dataset identifier",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "issued": {
+ "description": "Publication date",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "modified": {
+ "description": "Last modification date",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "publisher": {
+ "description": "Publisher name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "theme": {
+ "description": "Dataset theme category",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "description": "Dataset title",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide safety and idempotency info (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false). The description adds the behavior of paginated listings and the specific portal, which is sufficient 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?
Single sentence, efficiently front-loaded with the action verb 'Search', no filler. Every part 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?
Given the output schema exists to document return values, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects (search, pagination, portal, fields). Annotations cover safety. No major gaps.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'keyword, theme, or both' but does not explicitly map parameters (e.g., query=keyword, theme=theme) or explain page/page_size. The examples help, but explicit guidance is missing.
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 searches the Spanish open data portal by keyword, theme, or both, and specifies the return fields (title, publisher, download links). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'dataset' (singular) and 'themes'.
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 usage for searching open data by keyword/theme but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the sibling list, no other tool directly competes, so the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.