subjectsBrowse the North Macedonia State Statistical Office (MakStat) PxWeb subject tree under the /MakStat database. Empty path returns top-level folders (type 'l'); drill with sub-paths to reach tables (type 't', '.px' suffix). Returns folder/table list for the given path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Sub-path under /MakStat/ (default empty = root, returns top-level folders). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "path": ""
+ },
+ {
+ "path": "Naselenie/VencaniRazvedeni"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining the response structure (folder/table list) and path behavior, which are not evident from annotations alone. No contradiction.
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 concise with two sentences, each serving a purpose: explaining the tool's scope and providing usage instructions. No unnecessary 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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (folder/table list with types). The tool is simple, and the description covers navigation and expected output for a browsing tool.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'path' parameter, and the description repeats the same information. While examples are helpful, the parameter semantics are fully defined by the schema, so the description adds minimal new meaning.
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: to browse the MakStat subject tree. It specifies the verb 'browse' and the resource 'subject tree' and distinguishes this tool from others by detailing the hierarchical structure (folders vs tables) and navigation.
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 root, sub-paths to drill down. It explains the returned data types ('l' for folders, 't' for tables) and how to reach tables. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is sufficient.
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.