Reads rows from an Andorran JSON-stat table by division, with optional date range, language, and row limit for statistical queries.
Read rows from a JSON-stat table.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| language | No | ca | |
| max_rows | No | ||
| id_division | Yes |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden but supplies almost nothing. It does not disclose pagination/truncation behavior (max_rows defaults to 200), the effect of start/end date filtering, the language default, or whether the call is read-only and safe — all of which matter for a data-reading tool with five parameters.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, which keeps it readable. But it is under-specified rather than truly concise: brevity here reflects missing content, not efficient communication.
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 explained. Still, with no annotations, no parameter documentation, and no usage guidance for a five-parameter tool with one required argument, the definition is not complete enough for reliable 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 0% across five parameters, and the description mentions none of them. Critical semantics — what id_division refers to, the date format for start/end, the meaning of language and max_rows — are undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving the agent unable to populate arguments correctly.
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 states a verb ("Read") and a resource ("rows from a JSON-stat table"), so the basic purpose is identifiable. However, "JSON-stat table" is jargon left unexplained, and there is no differentiation from the sibling stats_search, which an agent would need to disambiguate a data-fetch tool from a search tool.
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 tool versus stats_search or other siblings, nor any stated preconditions (e.g., needing an id_division obtained from stats_search). The agent must infer the entire usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.