DataSF MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it returns 'recently updated or popular datasets,' which adds some context about the return behavior, but it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key features. There's no wasted text, and it avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from behavior.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and some behavioral traits, but it lacks details on output format, error handling, and sibling tool differentiation, which would enhance completeness for effective agent use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (category and limit) with descriptions and constraints. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'optionally filter by category,' which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what's in the structured fields.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Browse available datasets from San Francisco's open data portal' specifies the verb (browse) and resource (datasets). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning filtering by category and returning recently updated/popular datasets, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like search_datasf.

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?

The description implies usage context through 'optionally filter by category' and 'returns recently updated or popular datasets,' suggesting it's for general browsing rather than specific searches. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like search_datasf or query_datasf, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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