FAOSTAT MCP Server

by berba-q

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

faostat_get_metadata_print

Fetch printable, simplified metadata for a FAOSTAT domain code to review dataset details and documentation.

Instructions

Get metadata for a domain in a printable/simplified format.

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": {
      "domain_code": "<domain_code>"
    },
    "name": "faostat_get_metadata_print"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lang`	No		en
`domain_code`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one trait beyond the schema (output is printable/simplified), but says nothing about what is simplified or dropped, whether domain_code must be valid, or any access constraints. Given an output schema exists, return-value detail is not required, but the transformation semantics are unexplained.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, and the core action is front-loaded. Efficient, though the terseness contributes to the gaps elsewhere.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and a near-identical sibling (faostat_get_metadata), the description should at minimum differentiate the two and document 'lang'. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the variant's purpose and parameters remain under-specified.

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 description coverage is 0% across two parameters. The description covers 'domain' loosely (mapping to domain_code) but says nothing about the 'lang' parameter, its default, or accepted values, so it only partially compensates for the documentation gap.

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

Purpose3/5

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

States a clear verb+resource ('Get metadata for a domain') and adds a format qualifier ('printable/simplified'). However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling faostat_get_metadata, which appears to retrieve the same resource; the 'printable' modifier is the only hint of difference and is left unexplained.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to choose this over faostat_get_metadata or faostat_get_definitions. The phrase 'printable/simplified format' implies a human-readable use case but gives no condition or exclusion to act on.

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