Skip to main content
Glama

Table Metadata

table_metadata
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the structure/metadata for a Singapore statistics table by resourceId (get ids from search_tables): theme, subject, frequency, period coverage and the list of variables/series. Result is under Data.records.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "resourceId": "M810001"
    },
    "name": "table_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resourceIdYesTable id from search_tables, e.g. "M810001".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
      +  {
      +    "resourceId": "M810001"
      +  }
      +]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds behavioral detail: the result location under 'Data.records' and the specific fields returned (theme, subject, frequency, period coverage, variables/series). This adds value beyond annotations, though it could mention error handling or data limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences. The first sentence captures the core purpose and required input, the second tells where to find the result. No superfluous words, well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, but rich annotations), the description is fairly complete. It lists the types of metadata returned and the location. Missing details like data format or pagination, but these are minor for such a tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the sole parameter 'resourceId', with a clear description and example. The tool description repeats the example but does not add new semantic information. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'structure/metadata for a Singapore statistics table'. It also tells how to obtain the required resourceId from the sibling tool 'search_tables', making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly instructs to 'get ids from search_tables', which tells the agent when to use this tool (after obtaining a resourceId). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear. A more detailed exclusion would improve it further.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.