CKAN MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search datasets by keyword' implies a read-only operation but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements (implied by includePrivate parameter), rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what format the results will be returned in. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 extremely concise at just three words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core function without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse 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?

For a complex tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what kind of results to expect, how they're structured, or provide any context about the search capabilities beyond the basic keyword mention. The agent would need to rely heavily on the parameter schema alone to understand this tool's full functionality.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation entirely through the structured schema, with no value added by the description text.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('datasets'), and indicates the primary mechanism ('by keyword'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'find_relevant_datasets' or 'list_datasets', which appear to serve similar search/listing functions.

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. With multiple sibling tools that appear related to dataset discovery (find_relevant_datasets, list_datasets, get_package), the agent receives no help in selecting the appropriate tool for different search scenarios or understanding the trade-offs between them.

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