package_listChilean open data catalogue (datos.gob.cl CKAN) — paginated list of all dataset slugs/names. Use to enumerate available datasets before fetching details with package_show.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by noting the paginated nature and that it returns slugs/names, which is useful beyond annotation hints. No contradictions found.
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 the key purpose and context, and no filler. Every word 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?
The tool is simple, has strong annotations, and an output schema. The description covers domain, purpose, and relationship to sibling package_show, which is sufficient for a paginated enumeration 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 0% and the description does not explain the limit/offset parameters beyond implying pagination. The terms are standard but the description fails to detail their semantics or defaults, leaving compensation gaps.
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 clearly states the tool lists all dataset slugs/names with pagination, specifying the Chilean data catalogue context. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning it as an enumeration step before package_show.
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?
Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use to enumerate available datasets before fetching details with package_show.' This names the alternative and clarifies when the tool is appropriate, fulfilling the dimension's requirement.
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.
Tools are generally distinct in purpose, but some overlap exists between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research. Descriptions clearly differentiate them, but an agent might still need to carefully choose.
Most tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear prefixes (e.g., pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). A few names like compare_entities and validate_claim break the pattern, but overall it is predictable.
With 40 tools, the server is overly large for a single coherent set. Many tools are meta or auxiliary, but the count exceeds the 'too many' threshold, making it hard for agents to navigate.
The tool set covers data retrieval, Chilean open data, Polymarket, memory, and monitoring comprehensively. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct trading for Polymarket), but the surface is complete for the stated purpose.