ted-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

check_query

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate TED expert-search syntax without returning notices. Ensure your query is correctly formatted before searching EU public-procurement notices.

Instructions

Validate TED expert-search syntax without returning notices.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "check_query"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful detail that it validates without returning notices, i.e. a validation-only result rather than data. It does not say what a failure/validity response looks like, but that is partly the output schema's job.

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 that front-loads the action and resource, with every clause earning its place (the 'without returning notices' clause carries real information about output).

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. For a one-parameter validation tool this is close to adequate, but it omits any hint of how to interpret a validation result or what makes a query invalid. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema carries no meaning for 'query'. The description compensates partially by identifying the expected format as 'TED expert-search syntax', which is genuinely useful semantics, but it gives no examples, constraints, or escaping rules for that syntax.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: validating TED expert-search syntax, with the added scoping note that it does not return notices. This clearly distinguishes it from the search_* and count_tenders siblings, which retrieve data rather than validate a query. It stops short of naming those siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives. The implication that you run this before a search to pre-check syntax is inferable but never stated, and no conditions or exclusions are given.

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

Deploy Server