CKAN MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (listing portals and showing selection) but doesn't describe the return format, whether it's read-only or has side effects, error conditions, or any performance or permission considerations. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with portal configuration.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates both primary and secondary actions without wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns structured information about CKAN portals. It doesn't explain what 'configured CKAN portals' means, what 'current selection' refers to, or the format of the response. For a tool with potential complexity in portal management, this leaves too many unanswered questions.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline expectation for a zero-parameter tool.

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 with the verb 'List' and resource 'configured CKAN portals', and adds the secondary action 'show the current selection'. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_datasets' or 'audit_ckan_api', but the focus on portal configuration rather than datasets provides implicit 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions 'when available' for the current selection, it doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools like 'ckan_api_initialise' or 'audit_ckan_api' that might relate to portal configuration.

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