datasetsSearch the Mesa Open Data catalog of open datasets by keyword. Returns each dataset's resource_id, name, description, category and update date — pass the resource_id to query/metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max datasets (1-100, default 20). | |
| query | No | Keyword to search dataset titles/descriptions (e.g. "budget", "crime", "health"). | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "budget"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 10,
+ "offset": 0,
+ "query": "crime"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. Description adds context about return fields and next step (pass resource_id to metadata), which provides behavioral insight beyond annotations but does not contradict them.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by output details and usage hint. No unnecessary words.
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 search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers return value details, pagination hint (implicit from offset/limit), and linkage to metadata tool. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, so no gaps.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what schema already provides, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Search' and resource 'Mesa Open Data catalog of open datasets', and lists exactly what is returned (resource_id, name, description, category, update date). It is clear and distinguishes from other tools by focusing on open datasets.
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?
Implies usage for keyword searching of datasets and hints at using resource_id for further metadata queries, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with sibling tools like query or deep_research.
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.
Several tool groups have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx variants, polymarket research tools, visibility checks), despite detailed descriptions. An agent may struggle to choose between closely related options.
Tool names mix snake_case verb_noun patterns (e.g., ai_visibility_check, compare_entities) with noun-heavy compound names (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage, deep_research) and single-word names (e.g., query, recall). No consistent convention.
With 34 tools, the surface is heavy for a research/data server. Many tools are variants of core capabilities (ask_pipeworx, polymarket edges), suggesting consolidation would improve usability.
The server covers a broad range: data research, prediction markets, entity profiles, monitoring. However, the abundance of specialized variants and gaps in unified workflows (e.g., needing separate tools for simple vs grounded queries) reduce completeness.