Berlin Open Data MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the search engine (CKAN-Solr), the scope (full-text across multiple fields), and the approximate dataset count (2500+). It also mentions the return format (Markdown-formatted summaries), which is helpful though output schema exists.

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?

Three tightly focused sentences with zero waste: first states purpose and implementation, second details search scope, third specifies output format. Every sentence adds distinct value. The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 tool's moderate complexity (search with multiple parameters), excellent schema documentation (100% coverage in practice despite 0% metric), comprehensive annotations, and existing output schema, the description provides complete contextual understanding. It covers what the tool does, how it works, what it returns, and the data scope.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the input schema itself has excellent descriptions for all parameters (query, rows, offset, sort, filter_group) with examples and constraints. The tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. With rich schema documentation, the baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 specific action ('Durchsucht' - searches), the target resource ('Open-Data-Katalog des Landes Berlin nach Datensaetzen'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's a search tool (vs. analyze, get, list, or stats tools). It provides both the German and technical implementation detail (CKAN-Solr).

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 usage context by mentioning it searches across 'Titel, Beschreibung, Tags und Metadaten aller 2500+ Datensaetze,' which helps differentiate from more specific retrieval tools like berlin_get_dataset. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. berlin_analyze_datasets or berlin_list_categories/tags, nor does it provide exclusion guidance.

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