subjectsBrowse the Statistics Faroe Islands (Hagstova Føroya) PxWeb subject tree. Empty path returns the database list; drill into 'H2' for folders (type 'l') and tables (type 't', id ends '.px'). Use the returned path to call table_meta or query_table.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Sub-path under the API base (default empty = database list). e.g. "H2" or "H2/IB/IB01". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "path": ""
+ },
+ {
+ "path": "H2"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc. The description adds value by explaining the tree structure (folders type 'l', tables type 't', id ends '.px') and behavior for empty vs. non-empty paths, which is beyond what annotations provide.
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 three sentences: purpose, details, and next steps. Every sentence is necessary and there is no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action.
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 browsing tool with one parameter and rich annotations, the description is complete. It explains input behavior, output format (implicitly), and how to proceed, covering all needed context even without an output schema.
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 schema description coverage at 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds context like 'Empty path returns the database list; drill into 'H2'' and examples, enhancing meaning beyond the schema's 'Sub-path under the API base'.
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 purpose: browsing the Statistics Faroe Islands PxWeb subject tree. It specifies the verb 'browse' and the resource 'subject tree', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_table and table_meta by noting that the output path is used to call them.
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 provides clear usage guidance: empty path for database list, drilling into 'H2' for folders/tables, and using the returned path for subsequent tools. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is strong.
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.