VeteranHQ

Find secondary conditions

find_secondary_conditions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when a veteran names a service-connected condition and asks what other conditions can follow from it. Returns conditions on file as medically linked to that primary condition, each with the strength of the supporting evidence, the medical rationale, key studies, filing notes and the diagnostic codes involved. An empty result means nothing is on file for that search term, not that no link exists. It does not diagnose, it does not establish that a particular veteran's condition is secondary, and it does not supply the medical nexus opinion a secondary claim needs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`primaryCondition`	Yes	Primary service-connected condition to search against (e.g., "PTSD", "Lumbar strain"). Partial matches supported.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior, so the heavy lifting is done. The description adds two key nuances: empty results mean nothing is on file (not absence of linkage) and explicitly disclaims diagnostic/nexus scope. These go beyond annotations, earning a high score.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (three sentences) with all essential information front-loaded. The first sentence states the exact trigger scenario. No waste or fluff; every sentence contributes meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates the return content (conditions, evidence strength, rationale, studies, filing notes, diagnostic codes) and explicitly handles the empty-result case. For a simple lookup tool, this is complete and self-sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema fully documents primaryCondition with an example and notes partial matches are supported, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the parameter is the primary condition and explains the search semantics, adding slight value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to find secondary conditions linked to a primary service-connected condition. It uses specific verbs ('find', 'returns') and clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on medical linkage lookup. The phrase 'Use this when...' explicitly defines when to invoke it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The opening sentence gives explicit 'when to use' guidance. The description also lists what the tool does NOT do (diagnose, establish secondary status, supply nexus opinion), serving as exclusions. However, it does not mention alternative sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity about when to use alternatives like check_presumptive_eligibility.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All VeteranHQ tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct VA disability operation — analyzing rating gaps, combining ratings, calculating rolling windows, checking presumptive eligibility, comparing criteria, computing retroactive pay, finding secondary conditions, looking up rates, preparing for exams, and searching legal authority. No two tools overlap in purpose; the 'calculate_*' trio is differentiated by input (percentages vs. episodes) and domain (combined rating vs. disc syndrome).

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern: analyze_, calculate_, check_, compare_, compute_, find_, lookup_, prepare_, search_. The verbs are semantically appropriate ('calculate' for numeric computation, 'check' for eligibility, 'lookup' for rate tables), and there are no mixed conventions or vague verbs like 'run' or 'do'.

Tool Count4/5

The server advertises 10 tools, but only 9 are listed. 9 tools is a well-scoped count for a VA disability rating assistant—each covers a distinct workflow step. The discrepancy may indicate a missing tool description in the input, so I deduct slightly for the listing mismatch, but the count itself is appropriate.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers rating analysis (gap, combined, rolling window), eligibility (presumptive), criteria search, pay estimation, secondary conditions, rate lookup, exam prep, and legal research. Notable gaps: no tool for filing a claim or appeal, no direct 'get rating schedule' without a specific diagnostic code, and no tool for calculating effective dates or handling denials. However, the core rating and compensation lifecycle is well covered.

Resources

Need Help?