datasetsSearch the Vermont 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": 50,
+ "offset": 0,
+ "query": "crime"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds return format and follow-up guidance, enhancing transparency beyond annotations without 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?
Two sentences, no waste. First sentence states purpose concisely, second explains output and usage. Front-loaded and efficient.
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 moderately complex tool (3 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, output, and next steps. 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 three parameters (limit, query, offset). The description only mentions 'by keyword', aligning with query but adding no additional meaning beyond the schema.
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 'Search the Vermont Open Data catalog of open datasets by keyword', specifying verb (search), resource (Vermont Open Data catalog), and action (by keyword). It also lists returned fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools.
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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. However, it provides a clear follow-up action (pass resource_id to query/metadata), implying usage context. No exclusion criteria are given.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but the ask_pipeworx trio (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and the polymarket cluster (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) could cause confusion without careful reading. However, the detailed descriptions effectively differentiate each tool's specific role.
All tool names follow consistent snake_case convention with a verb-noun pattern (e.g., compare_entities, recent_changes, resolve_entity). There are no mixed conventions or chaotic naming, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
At 34 tools, the set is extensive but justified by the server's broad scope covering Vermont open data, Pipeworx data platform, prediction markets, and utility features. Each tool earns its place, though the count is slightly high compared to typical servers.
The tool surface covers data retrieval, entity analysis, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, feedback, and claim validation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct compliance tools), but the set is comprehensive for its stated purpose of data integration and analysis.