Elephant MCP Server

Get Atlas dataset info

getAtlasDatasetInfo

Retrieve row counts and publication CIDs for every table within a specified Atlas state, county, and data group.

Instructions

Return the row count of every table in one state/county/data group and its publication CIDs.

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": {
      "state": "<state>",
      "county": "<county>",
      "dataGroup": "<dataGroup>"
    },
    "name": "getAtlasDatasetInfo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`state`	Yes	Two-letter state code, e.g. 'FL'.
`county`	Yes	Atlas county key, e.g. 'lee'.
`dataGroup`	Yes	Atlas data-group key, e.g. 'county'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.13.0Sep 22, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries behavioral weight. It clearly indicates a read-style operation returning row counts and CIDs, and 'every table' conveys scope. However, it does not disclose edge-case behavior, authorization needs, or output format details.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single, compact sentence states the action, the scope, and the two key outputs. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple metadata-lookup tool with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it names the inputs and the return contents. Minor ambiguity remains around the exact shape of the returned CIDs/row-count data, but overall an agent can call this tool confidently.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents state, county, and dataGroup. The description adds only the aggregate notion that these parameters identify one dataset/group, without materially enriching individual parameter meaning.

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 has a specific verb ('Return') and resource: row counts and publication CIDs for all tables in a state/county/data group. It is distinct from siblings like listAtlasCounties or getAtlasSchema, though it does not explicitly name how it differs.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as queryAtlas, getAtlasSchema, or listPropertiesByClassName. The description implies the input context but provides no exclusions or alternative selection criteria.

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

Deploy Server