ine_list_tablesList the data tables published for an INE operation; filter by table name to find relevant Spanish statistics using an operation code or ID.
List the data tables published for an INE operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | Optional words to filter table names | |
| operation | Yes | Operation code or id, e.g. 'IPC' or '25' |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | 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, covering the safety profile, but the description adds nothing beyond them. It says nothing about result size, truncation, or how the default limit of 50 / maximum of 200 affects the listing.
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 no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity edges into 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 need not be described, and the core purpose is conveyed. Still missing is the link to ine_search_operations for obtaining the required operation code and any note on how limit interacts with large result sets.
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 67%: query and operation are documented in the schema, while limit has no description anywhere. The description reinforces that results are scoped to an operation but adds no syntax, format, or pagination detail beyond the schema.
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 ('List the data tables published for an INE operation'), which is unambiguous on its own. However it does not distinguish itself from siblings like ine_get_table or ine_get_series, so an agent must infer the boundary from the names 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 guidance on when to use this versus ine_get_table or ine_get_series, and no mention that the operation code typically comes from ine_search_operations. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.