organizationsList all Government of Canada organizations that publish datasets on open.canada.ca, returning name, title, description, and dataset count for each (up to optional limit, default 100).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of items returned. | |
| items | Yes | List of organizations |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "limit": 20
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Number of items returned.",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "items": {
+ "description": "List of organizations",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "created": {
+ "description": "Creation timestamp",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "description": {
+ "description": "Organization description",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Organization ID",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "image_display_url": {
+ "description": "Logo image URL",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "is_organization": {
+ "description": "Whether this is an organization",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Organization name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "description": "Organization title",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "items",
+ "count"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns specific fields, uses a default limit of 100, and lists all organizations without filtering, enhancing beyond 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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('List all...') and includes all necessary details without extraneous words. Every part is valuable.
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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no required fields, clear annotations, and an output schema exists), the description completely covers what the agent needs to know: purpose, scope, returned fields, and parameter behavior.
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 one parameter 'limit' with 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by stating it's optional, defaulting to 100, and controlling the number of results. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 organizations, specifies the source (Government of Canada datasets on open.canada.ca), and details the returned fields (name, title, description, dataset count). It distinguishes from siblings by being a specific list of organizations from a particular portal.
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 indicates the tool returns all organizations with an optional limit, implying use when a complete list is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among siblings, though no direct alternative exists for this specific data.
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.