dataset_provenanceThe source, the date it was computed, the licence and the citation for the The Water Hub dataset. Read this to attribute a figure correctly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently lists the fields returned and frames the operation as read-only metadata lookup, which is sufficient for a fixed no-parameter provenance tool.
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 tight sentence plus a focused usage instruction. Every clause earns its place, and the core content is front-loaded without unnecessary elaboration.
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 zero-parameter metadata tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what information will be returned and why the tool should be used, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.
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 zero properties and is fully covered by the description's lack of parameter requirements. Since the tool takes no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies and the description adds appropriate clarity.
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 states exactly what the tool provides: the source, computed date, licence, and citation for The Water Hub dataset. It clearly distinguishes this provenance/metadata tool from sibling tools like dataset_columns, dataset_row, and dataset_stats by specifying its unique informational purpose.
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 gives a clear use case: 'Read this to attribute a figure correctly.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct operation on the dataset or enquiry. dataset_search, dataset_row, dataset_compare, and dataset_top have clear differences in matching logic and output. Enquiry tools are clearly separate. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
All dataset tools follow a dataset_* pattern, and enquiry tools follow enquiry_* except submit_enquiry which inverts the order. This is a minor deviation but the overall naming is predictable and clear.
10 tools is well-scoped for the domain, covering both data querying and enquiry submission without bloat.
The dataset query surface covers schema, metadata, row lookup, search, stats, and top/bottom. Enquiry covers description, fields, and submission. Minor gaps like a 'list all rows' or enquiry status check exist but are not critical.