Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ESCAP Data Explorer MCP Server

ESCAP Data Explorer MCP Server

by un-shayani
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript

get_indicator_metadata

Retrieve metadata, including dimensions, attributes, and structure, for a specific indicator after selection from the indicators list.

Instructions

Step 2: Retrieve metadata (dimensions, attributes, structure) for a specific indicator. Call this after choosing an indicator from get_indicators.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "indicatorCode": "<indicatorCode>",
      "datasetType": "<datasetType>"
    },
    "name": "get_indicator_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
datasetTypeYesDataset type: "SDG" or "Thematic"
indicatorCodeYesIndicator code (last segment after # in val field)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes a read operation ('retrieve metadata') but does not disclose whether it is read-only, has side effects, or requires special permissions. Implies safety but lacks explicit behavioral traits.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence defines purpose and scope, second sentence provides usage guidance in a workflow context.

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?

No output schema, but the description enumerates the kind of metadata (dimensions, attributes, structure). Could mention the return format (e.g., a JSON object) for completeness, but not essential.

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 coverage is 100%, each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description mentions the parameters implicitly by referencing 'specific indicator' but does not add extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'metadata (dimensions, attributes, structure) for a specific indicator'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_indicators (lists indicators) and get_data (retrieves data) by positioning as Step 2 in a workflow.

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?

Explicitly says to use after get_indicators, providing clear ordering. Does not include negative guidance or alternatives, but the workflow context is sufficient for an agent.

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