locate_service_code障害福祉サービスの6桁のサービスコード（例: 465140）が、厚生労働省の「介護給付費等単位数サービスコード」（コード表）のどこに載っているかを返す。返すのは所在だけ（施行の版・分冊・シート名・行番号と、厚労省のExcel・掲載ページのURL）で、コードの略称・算定項目・単位数は返さない。請求ソフトや国保連の返戻通知に出たコードの意味を確かめたいときに、原典の該当箇所へ利用者を案内するために使う。加算の要件や単位数の解説が必要なら search_articles を使うこと。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | 6桁のサービスコード（種類2桁＋項目4桁）。例: 465140。分割形「46 5140」でもよい |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by specifying what is NOT returned (abbreviations, calculation items, unit counts) and enumerating what the response contains (edition, volume, sheet name, row number, MHLW Excel and page URLs). It does not mention behavior when a code is absent or unparseable, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
Front-loaded with the core action and result, then scope limits and the alternative. Dense but every clause carries information; the only mild cost is the repetition of the 6-digit-code framing already in the schema.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return payload, and it does so concretely (施行の版・分冊・シート名・行番号 plus Excel/page URLs) while warning that code meanings are excluded. For a single-parameter lookup tool this is sufficient for correct invocation.
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% and the single parameter already documents the 6-digit format, the 種類2桁＋項目4桁 breakdown, the example 465140, and the spaced form. The description merely repeats the code format, adding no syntax or normalization detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a precise verb and resource: return where a 6-digit disability-welfare service code appears in the MHLW code table. It further bounds the output (location only: edition, volume, sheet, row, URLs) and explicitly distinguishes itself from search_articles, so an agent can separate it from its siblings without opening any schema.
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?
Names the triggering situation (verifying a code seen in billing software or a Kokuho-ren return notice) and gives an explicit alternative plus the condition that selects it (use search_articles for addition requirements or unit-count explanations). When-to-use, when-not-to-use and the alternative are all present.
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.