groupsList thematic dataset categories (groups) on the EU open-data portal (e.g. environment, transport, economy); returns category names and IDs for use as filters in search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Array of groups |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "limit": 20
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "List of themes/groups/categories",
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "Array of groups",
+ "items": {
+ "description": "Group/category metadata",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns names and IDs for filtering, but does not explain pagination or the limit parameter. No contradiction.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the main action, and no unnecessary words. Every part earns its place.
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 simple list endpoint with one optional parameter and good annotations, the description gives sufficient context on purpose and output, though the limit parameter is left unexplained.
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 description does not mention the 'limit' parameter, and the schema has no descriptions. With 0% schema coverage, the description should explain the parameter but doesn't, so the agent only has the parameter name and example to infer meaning.
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 lists thematic dataset categories on the EU open-data portal, with examples (environment, transport, economy) and the output (names and IDs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like organizations and tags.
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?
It indicates the returned data is for use as filters in search, implying the tool is used to get category options for search filtering. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not to use, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded are highly similar; deep_research also overlaps with ask_pipeworx. This makes it hard for an agent to distinguish which to use.
Tool names are inconsistent, mixing camelCase (ask_pipeworx, ai_visibility_check) with snake_case (deep_research, compare_entities). Some are verb phrases, others are nouns (groups, tags), with no unified pattern.
With 36 tools covering EU open data, general data retrieval (Pipeworx), and prediction markets (Polymarket), the count is too high for a coherent, focused server. Many tools are redundant or meta-tools.
For a server named 'Data Europa', the EU open-data tools are basic (search, package, groups) lacking update/delete or analysis. The additional Pipeworx/Polymarket tools are extensive but unrelated, making the overall surface incomplete for the implied domain.