list_subjectsBrowse the Statistics Denmark subject tree (People, Labour, Economy, Business, Environment, ...). Pass a subject id to drill into its children; set recursive to expand the whole subtree.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language: "en" (default) or "da". | |
| subjects | No | Comma-separated subject id(s) to drill into (e.g. "1"). Omit for the top-level tree. | |
| recursive | No | Expand all descendant subjects (default false). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "subjects": "1"
+ },
+ {
+ "lang": "en",
+ "recursive": true
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context about hierarchical navigation (drilling into children, expanding subtree) beyond what annotations provide, without contradicting them.
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 two sentences, each serving a purpose: first introduces the tool's function, second explains parameter usage. No extraneous words, well-structured and 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 tool has 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains how to browse the tree. It does not describe the return format, but that is acceptable for a browsing tool where output is implied. Slight improvement could include mention of what is returned (list of subjects).
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?
With 100% schema coverage, the description adds marginal value over the schema's parameter descriptions. The examples and clarifications (e.g., 'Omit for the top-level tree') are helpful but not essential given the schema already documents each parameter.
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 uses a specific verb 'Browse' and identifies the resource 'Statistics Denmark subject tree'. It gives examples of usage, distinguishing it from sibling tools that do other tasks like research, alerts, or table info.
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 clearly explains how to use parameters: omit subjects for top-level, pass an id to drill into children, set recursive for full subtree. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is 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.