fred-mcp-server

fred_source

Retrieve metadata and details for a specific economic data source from the Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) API. Provide the source ID to get information about that source.

Instructions

Get a specific source of economic data.

Returns: dict with key 'sources'.

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": {
      "source_id": "<source_id>"
    },
    "name": "fred_source"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source_id`	Yes
`realtime_start`	No
`realtime_end`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.2May 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states return type (dict with key 'sources'), but does not disclose read-only nature, side effects, rate limits, or prerequisites. Lacks behavioral details.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Description is very concise (two short sentences), but lacks structure and omits important details. Front-loads purpose, but too sparse to be informative.

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?

Given the simple tool, description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter roles, lacks context on realtime features, and does not elaborate on the return dict. Output schema presence helps but is not leveraged in description.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but description does not explain any parameters. It fails to describe source_id (required) or optional realtime_start/end, leaving agents without meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it gets a specific source of economic data, which aligns with the tool name and indicates a single-source retrieval. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fred_sources that list all sources, but the word 'specific' implies filtering by ID.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With many sibling tools, such as fred_sources for listing or fred_source_releases for a source's releases, missing context about when to choose each.

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