Find World Bank indicators by keyword across 29,000+ catalog entries. Use for GDP, health expenditure, life expectancy, CO2 emissions, and more.
Search World Bank indicators by keyword across the full ~29,000-indicator catalog. Examples: 'GDP', 'health expenditure', 'life expectancy', 'CO2 emissions'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max indicators to return | |
| query | Yes | Keywords to search for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2026.9.14Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "default": 30,
+ "description": "Max indicators to return",
+ "maximum": 100,
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+}v2026.4.11Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2026.3.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the catalog size but does not disclose additional behavior such as return format, pagination, or rate limits. It does not contradict annotations, but adds minimal value beyond them.
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?
Two sentences with no filler: the first sentence states the action and scope, the second provides concrete examples. Purpose is front-loaded, and every word earns its place.
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 simple search tool with two parameters and clear annotations, the description provides enough to call it correctly. It could mention what the response contains (a list of matching indicators) since there is no output schema, but the verb 'search' and the examples make the return type reasonably obvious. No other critical information is missing.
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 100%: query is described as 'Keywords to search for' and limit as 'Max indicators to return'. The description's examples reinforce that query takes free-text keywords, but it does not add any semantics beyond the schema. Per the baseline for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate.
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 specific verb ('Search'), resource ('World Bank indicators'), and scope ('full ~29,000-indicator catalog'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like wb_indicator, wb_compare, and wb_countries by focusing on keyword search across the entire catalog. Examples further clarify intent.
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 description implies usage by providing example keyword queries, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like wb_indicator or wb_compare. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so an agent must infer when this is the right search tool from the sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.