Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unique Domains MCP server

Unique Domains MCP server

Official
by UniqueDomains
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Free GitHub datasets that hold the same rows as these answers

ud_list_meta_datasets
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists free GitHub datasets containing the same rows as query answers, enabling bulk data retrieval as files. Use it when you need the data in bulk for offline analysis.

Instructions

The free GitHub datasets that hold the same rows as these answers. Use it when someone wants the data in bulk, as files. Takes no input.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsNoComma-separated top-level keys to keep: id, repository, url, endpoint, updatedOn.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
metaNoThe day of the answer, and the page cursor of a list.
linksNoLinks of the answer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.4

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's added value is that the payload is a pointer to externally hosted GitHub files rather than row data itself. However it omits file format, size, and whether the references are versioned, and the closing claim about inputs is inaccurate (see parameter semantics), which weakens trust in the rest of the behavioral statement.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Three short sentences with the resource stated first and the usage trigger second — well front-loaded and free of padding. The final sentence earns no place: it is both redundant with the schema and factually wrong about the tool taking no input.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple (one optional param, output schema present, annotations present), so little explanation is needed, and the bulk-file framing covers the main conceptual gap. Still missing is any hint of which data families the datasets cover or how the pointers relate to the rows from other ud_* tools, leaving "these answers" underspecified.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the single optional "fields" parameter and its enumerable keys are already fully documented in the schema. The description does not merely omit it — it asserts "Takes no input," which directly contradicts the presence of a fields projection parameter and could lead an agent to skip a useful projection argument.

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

Purpose4/5

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

"The free GitHub datasets that hold the same rows as these answers" identifies a concrete resource — bulk data files mirroring API results — and the phrase "as files" distinguishes it from the sibling listing tools that return JSON rows. The verb is implicit (it is a listing tool, not stated) and "these answers" is only understandable from conversational context, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

"Use it when someone wants the data in bulk, as files" gives a clear positive trigger that separates it from the paged sibling list endpoints. There is no explicit when-not condition and no sibling is named as an alternative for smaller queries, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools