ine_get_seriesFetch the latest values of a single INE series by its series code. Retrieve up to the last N data points to track recent Spanish statistics trends.
Fetch the latest values of a single INE series.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| last_n | No | ||
| series_code | Yes | Series code, e.g. 'IPC251852' |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| points | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The phrase 'latest values' adds useful scoping (recent points rather than full history), but the description says nothing about rate limits, upstream INE availability, or how last_n governs the returned window.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Its brevity is efficient, though it edges toward under-specification rather than pure conciseness.
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?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but for a tool with an undocumented last_n parameter, no usage guidance, and no sibling differentiation, the description leaves meaningful gaps for correct invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 50%: series_code carries an example in the schema, while last_n is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no meaning beyond the structured fields — it never mentions the window size parameter at all.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('fetch the latest values of a single INE series'), which tells an agent this retrieves data points rather than metadata. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like ine_get_table or ine_list_tables, so an agent must infer the boundary from the noun 'series' alone.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as ine_get_table or ine_search_operations. The agent must infer that this tool applies once a series code is already known.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.