US Government Open Data MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool supports OData $filter syntax, which is a key behavioral trait for querying. However, it does not mention other important aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination behavior (beyond the 'top' and 'skip' parameters in the schema), leaving gaps in 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?

The description is highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of only two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key capability (OData support). Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of a general-purpose query tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the purpose and OData support but lacks details on return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. With no annotations and no output schema, more context on behavioral aspects would be beneficial for adequate completeness.

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 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters (e.g., 'dataset', 'filter', 'select'). The description adds minimal value by mentioning OData syntax in general but does not provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema specifies, such as examples for all parameters or constraints not covered in schema descriptions.

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 the tool's purpose: 'General-purpose query against any OpenFEMA v2 dataset.' It specifies the verb ('query') and resource ('OpenFEMA v2 dataset'), and provides examples of datasets (e.g., NFIP flood insurance claims). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fema_disaster_declarations' or 'fema_housing_assistance', which might be more specific versions of similar queries, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 when to use this tool by listing example datasets (e.g., 'NFIP flood insurance claims/policies, hazard mitigation grants') and stating it's for 'any OpenFEMA v2 dataset.' However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternative tools (e.g., specific FEMA sibling tools) or any exclusions, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.