datasetsSearch the Santa Clara County 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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns a list and suggests follow-up actions, but does not disclose behaviors like pagination handling or rate limits beyond what annotations imply.
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 efficiently convey the tool's purpose, return fields, and how to use the result. No redundant words, and the structure is front-loaded with key information.
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 simplicity of the tool (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is complete: it specifies what is returned and how to proceed with the results. No gaps remain for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters (limit, query, offset). The description only echoes that search is 'by keyword', adding no new semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 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?
The description explicitly states the verb 'search' and the resource 'Santa Clara County Open Data catalog', and lists the specific fields returned (resource_id, name, description, category, update date). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like generic 'query' or 'search_within'.
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 clear guidance: use this tool to find datasets by keyword, then pass the resource_id to another tool ('query/metadata') for more details. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, though no direct alternative exists among siblings.
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 overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route questions to the same 5,798-tool catalog and can return similar evidence-backed answers. Additionally, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, and bet_research all circle prediction-market edge detection, creating boundary ambiguity despite detailed descriptions.
Most tools follow a verb_noun or noun_verb pattern (e.g., list_subscriptions, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, compare_entities, resolve_entity), and consistent snake_case is used throughout. However, some names are vague and unclear (query, metadata, recall, forget, datasets), and the ask_pipeworx family is not clearly versioned in naming.
34 tools is heavy for a server that is conceptually a data-access gateway plus a few meta utilities. The count is inflated by multiple near-duplicate research modes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and an extensive prediction-market subfamily that could be consolidated.
The server covers its main domains well: entity resolution, company profiles, comparisons, change feeds, claim verification, grounded Q&A, and data discovery all exist. Minor gaps include no obvious tool for general web search or full-text legal records, and the subscription/alert system lacks an update-subscription tool, but core workflows have no dead ends.