search_datasetsSearch Slovenia Open Data (Slovenia) for datasets by keyword. Returns each dataset's id/name, title, organization, and its resources (each with a resource_id for query_resource).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max datasets (1-100, default 20). | |
| query | No | Keyword(s); blank/"*" lists all. | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "budget"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 10,
+ "offset": 0,
+ "query": "population"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds value by specifying the return structure (id/name, title, organization, resources) and the practical link to query_resource, which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradictions 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?
The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that start with the core purpose and then list return items. No redundant or vague wording, every sentence contributes useful information.
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 search tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: the data source, intended use, return fields, and a link to a related tool. Minor aspects like pagination behavior are already covered by the schema. It is nearly complete for the tool's complexity.
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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (limit, query, offset). The description does not add significant parameter details, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameters.
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 function: 'Search Slovenia Open Data for datasets by keyword.' It specifies the resource (Slovenia Open Data) and the action (search), and differentiates from sibling tools by noting it returns datasets and their resources, with resource IDs intended for query_resource.
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 implies when to use this tool: to find datasets by keyword. It also provides a pointer to a sibling tool ('query_resource') by noting resources have a resource_id for that purpose, which gives some guidance on next steps. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or describe alternative tools for different scenarios.
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.