Civic Data MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('List of matching EU datasets with titles and descriptions') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet-point-like sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return format, though it lacks usage guidelines and detailed behavioral context. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values in depth.

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 description adds semantic context for both parameters: 'query' is explained as 'Search terms (e.g., 'environment', 'economy', 'transport')' and 'limit' as 'Number of results to return (default: 10, max: 50)'. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well, but it doesn't provide deeper insights like query syntax or result ordering.

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 as searching for datasets on the European Union Open Data Portal, using specific verbs ('Search for datasets') and identifying the resource ('European Union Open Data Portal'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_datasets' or 'query_eu_data', which appear to have overlapping domains.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'search_datasets', 'query_eu_data', and 'get_eu_dataset_info' available, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.

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