Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
erddap-mcp

erddap-mcp

by mrfentmen
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

search_datasets

Search an ERDDAP server's dataset catalogue by keyword to find dataset IDs, titles, and institutions. Specify a server or URL and optional result limit.

Instructions

Search a server's dataset catalogue by keyword; returns dataset IDs with title and institution.

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": "search_datasets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax datasets to show (default 15).
queryNoSearch keywords, e.g. 'sea surface temperature' or 'argo float'.
serverNoServer nickname from list_servers, or any https://.../erddap URL.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose that the operation is a read and what the results contain (IDs, title, institution), but says nothing about permission requirements, whether the server param is mandatory in practice, result caps, or empty-result behavior.

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?

A single compact clause that front-loads the action and scope and then states the return payload. No filler and nothing misleading.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple three-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage, the definition is nearly sufficient — it even describes return values despite there being no output schema. Only the lack of guidance on following up with dataset_info keeps it from a 5.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (query, server, limit) are already documented with examples and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (search) and resource (a server's dataset catalogue) plus the scope of results (dataset IDs with title and institution). It is clearly distinct from list_servers, dataset_info, and the query_* tools, though it never names them explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: 'by keyword' signals a discovery step before dataset_info, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and no mention of alternatives or the prerequisite relationship to list_servers.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools