ine_search_operationsSearch and identify Spanish INE statistical operations, including IPC, EPA, and housing price indices, using accent-insensitive keyword queries.
Find INE statistical operations (IPC, EPA, Índice de Precios de Vivienda...). Accent-insensitive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | Words to match, e.g. 'precios vivienda' |
| 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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — 'Accent-insensitive' matching — but says nothing about pagination, how the limit interacts with results, or match/ranking behavior.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of omitting useful context, but nothing present is wasted.
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-format explanation is not required. However, for a search tool with an undocumented 'limit' parameter, the description should say more about result volume/paging; accent-insensitivity alone is a thin addition.
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%: 'query' is documented in the schema with an example, but 'limit' has no description beyond default 25 / max 100. The description's operation examples (IPC, EPA) implicitly illustrate good query values, which partially compensates, landing at the baseline.
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 ('Find') and resource ('INE statistical operations') and gives concrete examples (IPC, EPA, Índice de Precios de Vivienda) that make the domain unambiguous. It's clearly the discovery/search tool versus the retrieval siblings (ine_get_table, ine_get_series), though it never names them.
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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools (ine_list_tables, ine_get_table) that an agent might pick instead. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'Find'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.