lindas-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_publishers

Read-onlyIdempotent

Discover which federal authorities publish data cubes and their counts. Use returned creator URIs to restrict cube searches to a specific body.

Instructions

List the federal bodies that publish cubes, with cube counts.

Returns creator URIs you can pass to search_cubes to restrict a search to one authority.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_publishers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Default
`source`	No	Data: LINDAS Linked Data Service, Swiss Federal Archives — https://lindas.admin.ch. Each cube declares its own licence; check the `licence` field before reuse.
`returned`	Yes
`provenance`	No	live_sparql
`publishers`	Yes
`retrieved_at`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable context about the return value (creator URIs and cube counts) without contradicting the annotations. It could mention more about open-world semantics, but that is already hinted by annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a practical usage note. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter tool with a rich output schema and annotations, the description fully covers the purpose, what is returned, and how the output integrates with a sibling tool. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The baseline score of 4 applies, and the description correctly focuses on the output and usage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('federal bodies that publish cubes') and adds that it includes cube counts. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining the output can be used with search_cubes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on how to use the returned creator URIs with search_cubes, implying a clear use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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

Deploy Server