Fetch metadata for a specific statistical table from Japan's e-Stat portal as CSV. Provide a stats_data_id to get details like description, variables, and survey period.
統計表のメタ情報をCSVで取得する.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stats_data_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It does add the CSV format detail, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose other behaviors such as rate limits, response size, or pagination. Given the annotation coverage, the description adds limited but relevant context.
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 sentence that directly states the purpose and format. It is concise and free of fluff, but it is also minimal. It earns its place by conveying the core action and output format.
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?
The tool has a single parameter, an output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation. However, the description omits key contextual information: what 'stats_data_id' represents, how it relates to other tools, and when to choose CSV over JSON. This leaves gaps in understanding for the agent.
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 input schema has a single required parameter 'stats_data_id' with no description (0% coverage). The tool description also does not explain what this ID is or how to obtain it. Thus, the agent has no semantic guidance for this parameter.
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 the verb (取得する) and resource (統計表のメタ情報) and explicitly mentions CSV format, which distinguishes it from get_meta_info. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling or describe the exact difference beyond format, so it's clear but not fully differentiating.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_meta_info or get_stats_data_csv. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.