tables_for_operationList the statistical tables belonging to one INE operation. operationId may be the numeric Id (e.g. 25) or the operation code (e.g. "IPC", "EPA"). Each table has an Id used by series_in_table / table_data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Response language. Default EN. | |
| operationId | Yes | Numeric Id or code, e.g. "IPC", "EPA", "25". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "operationId": "IPC"
+ },
+ {
+ "lang": "ES",
+ "operationId": "EPA"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the output cross-reference. No contradiction with 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence is necessary; no wasted words.
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 no output schema, the description hints at the return structure (table IDs). It covers essential context for a simple list tool. Could mention pagination or error handling, but not required for minimal completeness.
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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description reiterates the operationId format but adds no new parameter semantic value. The mention of output table Ids is helpful but not param-specific.
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 lists statistical tables belonging to one INE operation, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_operations or series_in_table by focusing on tables per operation.
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 implicitly guides by mentioning that each table has an Id used by series_in_table/table_data, suggesting a workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusions.
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.