Find AWS QuickSight datasets by partial, case-insensitive name match. Use it to locate datasets when you only know part of the name.
Search QuickSight datasets by name (case-insensitive partial match).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Search string to match against dataset names. Example: "wbr" matches "WBR Weekly", "wbr_ingest", etc. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the case-insensitive partial-match trait, which is useful behavioral detail, but says nothing about result limits, ordering, or empty-match behavior. With return shape covered by the output schema, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the qualifier appended rather than buried. Nothing 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?
For a one-parameter read-only search with an output schema and annotations, this covers what an agent needs to invoke it. Only the sibling-routing context (search vs list vs get) is absent.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already carries an example ('wbr' matching 'WBR Weekly'). The description's case-insensitive partial-match note reinforces the schema but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (search) and resource (QuickSight datasets) and pins the matching semantics as case-insensitive partial match, which meaningfully narrows the operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_datasets or get_dataset, so an agent must infer the routing.
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 partial-match phrasing implies usage (use when you know a fragment of the name rather than an exact ID), but no when-to-use rule or named alternative such as list_datasets or get_dataset is given. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.