datasetsSearch the Utah 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, so the description adds limited behavioral context. It mentions the returned fields, which is helpful but not a behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
The description is two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. No extraneous words, every sentence adds value.
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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. It also provides a cross-reference to another tool (query/metadata) for using the resource_id. Minor gap: no mention of pagination behavior beyond the offset parameter, but that is covered in the schema. Overall complete for a search tool.
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 each parameter described. The description does not add new semantics beyond the schema; it only reiterates the keyword search function. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema carries the burden.
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 searches the Utah Open Data catalog by keyword, and lists the returned fields (resource_id, name, description, category, update date). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_within or query by specifying the exact data source and return format.
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 when to use (searching datasets by keyword) and hints at a follow-up action (pass resource_id to query/metadata), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives. For a tool with many siblings, more explicit guidance would improve this score.
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.
The toolset contains several near-duplicate clusters: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route the same kinds of questions, and the six polymarket tools have heavily overlapping scopes. An agent would frequently struggle to pick the right variant despite the detailed descriptions.
Names consistently use lowercase snake_case with a verb-first or domain-prefixed pattern (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, validate_claim, polymarket_arbitrage). Minor deviations like bare nouns (datasets, metadata) are acceptable but not perfectly uniform.
34 tools is far beyond what a Utah Open Data server needs; only 3 tools actually relate to the named domain. The rest form a sprawling general-purpose Pipeworx/prediction-market platform, making the surface feel bloated for its stated purpose.
For the actual Utah Open Data catalog, datasets/query/metadata is a complete read-only surface. But for the broader Pipeworx functionality the set actually delivers, there are odd gaps (no account management beyond subscriptions) and many irrelevant tools, so overall coverage is uneven.