Search FAOSTAT definition tables to find matching areas, items, elements, or units for a specified dataset.
Search a FAOSTAT domain's area, item, element, unit, or other definition table.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| dataset | Yes | ||
| dimension | Yes |
| 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Search' and gives no details about pagination, cursor behavior, match semantics, or data-source quirks. It is not misleading, but it adds minimal behavioral 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?
A single, readable sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loads the core action and resource, though it sacrifices substance for brevity.
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 5 parameters (3 required), no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, but the description only gives a high-level purpose. It lacks instructions on how to specify dataset and dimension, how query is matched, and how pagination works. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the calling context is still under-specified.
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%, and the description does not explain dataset, dimension, query, limit, or cursor. It only hints that dimension refers to definition tables like area/item/element/unit, which is not enough to compensate for the complete lack of schema-level parameter documentation.
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 ('FAOSTAT domain's area, item, element, unit, or other definition table'). It conveys the tool's scope clearly, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling search tools like search_indicators.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_indicators or faostat_list_domains. Usage context is only implied by the name and one-line description; there are no exclusions or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.