ILO Statistics (ILOSTAT) MCP Server

List valid codes of a dimension

ilo_list_dimension_values

Read-onlyIdempotent

List valid codes and labels for any dimension of an ILOSTAT dataflow to construct correct ilo_get_data filters. Search resolves names to codes; supports pagination.

Instructions

Valid codes (id + label) of one dimension of an ILOSTAT dataflow — e.g. the country/area codes of REF_AREA (ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 such as BRA, plus X-codes for aggregates such as X01 World) or the categories of SEX (SEX_T/SEX_M/SEX_F) and AGE. Use search to resolve a name to a code (e.g. search "Brazil") instead of paging through hundreds of codes; codelists are shared across dataflows, so a code found here is valid wherever the same codelist is used. Use to build correct ilo_get_data filters. Does not return statistical values, does not say which codes actually have data for a given dataflow, and is not applicable to the time dimension (filter it via start_period/end_period in ilo_get_data).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum codes returned (default 200)
`offset`	No	Codes to skip, for pagination (default 0)
`search`	No	Case-insensitive filter on code id or label
`dataflow`	Yes	Dataflow id the dimension belongs to
`dimension`	Yes	Dimension id from ilo_get_indicator_metadata (e.g. "REF_AREA", "SEX")
`provenance_mode`	No	Provenance verbosity: 'concise' (default — source, url, vintage, retrieval date, citation, license) or 'detailed' (full canonical block with dataset, dimension key and notices)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`offset`	Yes
`values`	Yes
`showing`	Yes
`codelist`	Yes
`dataflow`	Yes
`has_more`	Yes
`dimension`	Yes
`provenance`	Yes
`attribution`	Yes
`next_offset`	No
`total_codes`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.6.0Sep 15, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / values / items / properties / name / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / values / items / properties / name / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
First observedv0.1.0Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral scope beyond them: codelists are shared across dataflows, results exclude statistical values, and codes do not indicate which have data. It stops short of describing pagination defaults or the raw return shape, so a 4 rather than 5.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then exclusions, in a compact block with no filler sentences. It is dense and runs long in a single paragraph, which slightly reduces scanability, but each clause carries information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description only needed to supply scope and exclusions — which it does: shared codelists, absence of data-availability info, and the time-dimension carve-out. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so limit/offset/search/dataflow/dimension/provenance_mode are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds the intent of `search` (name-to-code resolution) and implies paging, but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Valid codes (id + label) of one dimension of an ILOSTAT dataflow') and grounds it with concrete examples (REF_AREA ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, X-codes, SEX_T/SEX_M/SEX_F, AGE). An agent can distinguish this from ilo_get_data and search without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly routes the agent: use `search` to resolve a name to a code instead of paging, and use this to build ilo_get_data filters. It also names an exclusion ('not applicable to the time dimension — filter it via start_period/end_period in ilo_get_data'), which is exactly the when-not guidance the dimension calls for.

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

Deploy Server