list_locationsList the locations on HDX (CKAN group_list) — countries and crises, each keyed by a lowercase ISO3 code (e.g. {"name":"syr","display_name":"Syrian Arab Republic"}). Use a code as fq="groups:" in search_datasets to scope results to a country/crisis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max locations, 1-1000 (default 300; HDX has ~250). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds context about the actual data (countries/crises) and format, but no behavioral gaps or contradictions.
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?
Two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: definition and usage tip. No wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose.
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 simplicity, good annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it returns (list of locations with ISO3 codes) and how to use it downstream.
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?
Only one parameter 'limit' with 100% schema coverage. Description mentions default (300) and constraint (1-1000) but adds no new semantic meaning 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?
Clear verb 'List' and resource 'locations on HDX', with explanation of what locations are (countries and crises) and format (lowercase ISO3 key). Distinguishes from sibling tool 'list_organizations'.
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?
Explicitly states how to use the output: 'Use a code as fq="groups:<name>" in search_datasets to scope results to a country/crisis.' Provides direct guidance to the agent.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., three variants of ask_pipeworx, several polymarket tools, and multiple discovery/entity tools). Despite detailed descriptions, the similiar functionalities create confusion for an agent selecting among them.
Tool names are consistently in snake_case but the verb/noun pattern is mixed: some start with verbs (ask_, list_, remember_), others with nouns (entity_profile, polymarket_edges). This inconsistency reduces predictability.
35 tools is high for a single server, especially when the scope spans two disparate domains (HDX humanitarian data and Pipeworx data platform). Many tools could be logically split into separate, more focused servers.
The tool set covers a wide range of functionality (data retrieval, comparison, monitoring, memory) but has notable gaps: no direct data download tool for HDX resources, no account management, and no exploration of Pipeworx packs beyond discover_tools.