Catalunya Open Data MCP

idescat.list_table_geos

idescat_list_table_geos

Lists geographic codes for a given IDESCAT table. Use the returned geo_id to fetch table metadata and data.

Instructions

Required bridge from table discovery to metadata/data. Choose a returned geo_id, then call idescat_get_table_metadata before idescat_get_table_data.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "statistics_id": "<statistics_id>",
      "node_id": "<node_id>",
      "table_id": "<table_id>"
    },
    "name": "idescat_list_table_geos"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`lang`	No	ca
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`node_id`	Yes
`table_id`	Yes
`statistics_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`error`	No
`provenance`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.4Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or pagination behavior. The only hint is 'list' implying read, but that is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence, concise and front-loaded with purpose. However, it sacrifices critical details for brevity, making it less useful than it could be.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the absence of parameter descriptions in schema and no annotations, the description should compensate. It fails to explain required inputs or output structure (though output schema exists). The tool has 6 parameters, 3 required, yet the description ignores them entirely.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema), and the description adds no meaning to any of the 6 parameters (statistics_id, node_id, table_id, lang, limit, offset). Agent has no clue what each parameter represents or how to use them.

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 description states it's a 'bridge from table discovery to metadata/data' and instructs to 'choose a returned geo_id', clearly indicating the tool lists geographic variants for a table. It distinguishes its role from sibling data/metadata tools.

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 prescribes the workflow order: use this tool, then call idescat_get_table_metadata before idescat_get_table_data. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives.

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