Retrieve metadata for a Kaggle dataset by owner and slug to inspect its files, size, and format.
Get dataset metadata.
Args:
owner: Dataset owner username.
dataset_slug: Dataset slug name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | ||
| dataset_slug | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get dataset metadata' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, or output structure. The output schema exists but the description adds no behavioral context.
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 short but includes an Args block that essentially restates parameter names. It is not overly verbose, but the structure could be improved by front-loading the purpose and removing redundancy.
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?
Despite having an output schema that covers return values, the description omits any details about what metadata is returned, the scope of the data, or any constraints. For a two-parameter tool, this is insufficient context for an agent to use it effectively.
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 0%, yet the description's Args section merely repeats the parameter names with minimal elaboration ('Dataset owner username', 'Dataset slug name'). This adds negligible value beyond the schema titles. With no enums or nested objects, the description should compensate but does not.
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 'Get dataset metadata' clearly states the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like dataset_get, which likely also retrieves metadata. A more specific scope or distinction would improve clarity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent receives no help in choosing this tool over similar ones.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.