List live FAOSTAT groups and domains to find data for building source-qualified development indicator series.
List live FAOSTAT groups and domains available to build source-qualified series.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| group_code | No | ||
| include_archived | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| total | Yes | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| next_cursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'live' indicating current data, but does not explain pagination (though cursor/limit are in schema), filtering, or what the response contains beyond listing. There is minimal disclosure of operational 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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It is efficient, but it may be too brief for a tool with multiple parameters. Structure is clean, though it lacks elaboration.
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 tool with 5 optional parameters and no annotations, the description is noticeably incomplete. It does not explain any parameter semantics, the output structure, or provide examples. While an output schema exists, its content is unknown, so the description carries the burden of detail and falls short.
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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters like limit, cursor, status, group_code, and include_archived. The description does not mention any of them, adding no value for parameter understanding.
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 it lists FAOSTAT groups and domains, with a specific purpose: to build source-qualified series. The verb 'List' and resource 'FAOSTAT groups and domains' are specific. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_sources, but the FAOSTAT context and specific object make its purpose clear enough.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any sibling tools or conditions that would select this tool over others. The description simply states what it does without any contextual advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.