Retrieve details for a single dataset by slug, owner/slug, or ul:// URI to access its metadata and properties.
Get details for one dataset by slug, owner/slug, or a ul://owner/datasets/slug URI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dataset | Yes | Dataset ref by slug, owner/slug, or a ul://owner/datasets/slug URI. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.15Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.1.13Input schema / properties / dataset / descriptionPrevious value: -"Dataset ref by slug, owner/slug, or ul:// URI."New value: +"Dataset ref by slug, owner/slug, or a ul://owner/datasets/slug URI."v0.1.12Input schema / properties / dataset / descriptionPrevious value: -"Dataset ref by id, slug, username/slug, or ul:// URI."New value: +"Dataset ref by slug, owner/slug, or ul:// URI."v0.1.6Input schema / properties / dataset / descriptionAdded value: +"Dataset ref by id, slug, username/slug, or ul:// URI."v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on failure behavior for unresolvable slugs, no visibility/permission constraints, and no indication of what the returned detail includes.
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?
A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause (verb, resource, accepted identifier forms) carries 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?
For a single-parameter, read-only getter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus annotations give an agent enough to call it correctly. It stops short of five because it never distinguishes itself from datasets_list/explore_datasets in the description itself.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the description restates the exact same accepted formats (slug, owner/slug, ul:// URI) verbatim, adding no syntax examples or disambiguation beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb ("Get details") and resource ("one dataset"), with the scoping word "one" implicitly contrasting with the sibling datasets_list. It does not name datasets_list explicitly, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.
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?
Usage is implied by the singular "one dataset" versus the list-oriented siblings, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool over datasets_list or explore_datasets, nor any prerequisites such as required permissions or the need for a valid dataset ref.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.