Retrieve detailed information about a specific Hugging Face dataset by providing its ID, such as 'squad', to access metadata and attributes.
Get detailed information about a specific dataset
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dataset_id | Yes | The ID of the dataset (e.g., 'squad') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether it returns metadata, statistics, or other details. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, the response format, or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool that presumably returns structured data about datasets, more context is needed.
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%, with the single parameter 'dataset_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific dataset'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'search-datasets' or 'get-collection-info' that might also provide dataset information, preventing a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'search-datasets' available, there's no indication whether this is for known dataset IDs versus exploratory searches, or how it differs from other info-retrieval tools like 'get-model-info'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.