State document requirements for all 50 US states, an after-a-loss checklist, and a planning gap chec
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool targets a distinct scenario: assessing planning gaps, connecting an account, looking up state requirements, and getting after-loss steps. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (assess, connect, find, get + specific object). The naming is clean and predictable.
Four tools is a reasonable scope for this niche informational server—not excessive, but slightly minimal given the broader estate-planning domain.
Core informational needs are covered (assessment, legal requirements, after-death checklist), but connecting an account promises member tools that are not present in this set, creating a dead end for accessing actual user data.
Score how prepared someone's end-of-life planning is and rank what is missing by consequence. Pass whichever answers are known; unanswered areas are reported back as questions to ask. Use this when someone wants to know where they stand, what to do first, or whether their planning has holes. No account needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hasWill | No | Has a valid signed will | |
| hasFinancialPoa | No | Named someone to handle finances if incapacitated | |
| wishesAreRecorded | No | The people close to them know what they would want | |
| hasHealthCareAgent | No | Named someone to make medical decisions for them | |
| documentsAreFindable | No | Family could actually locate the documents | |
| beneficiariesAreCurrent | No | Account and policy beneficiary designations are up to date |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=trueestrategies. The description adds that unanswered parameters are reported as questions to ask, and no account is needed. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides additional behavioral insight beyond the safety hint.
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 purpose and consequence-ranking, then usage contextholidays. No fluff, 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?
The tool has 6 boolean params all described in schema. Description explains partial input handling and output indication. Siblings are clearly distinct. It's complete enough for a read-only assessment 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds that known answers can be passed partially and unanswered ones become questions, which explains the optionality and behavior 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 the tool's purpose: 'Score how prepared someone is for end-of-life planning and rank what is missing by consequence.' This is a specific verb (score, rank) with a defined resource (estate planning gaps). It distinguishes from siblings like 'find_state_document_requirements' (which is about state-specific requirements) and 'get_after_loss_first_steps' (which is about next steps after loss), whereas this tool is about assessment and gap analysis.
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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when someone wants to know where they stand, what to do first, or whether their planning has holes.' This gives clear context. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or alternative tools, so it's not a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Explain how to connect an existing FinalPeace account so the member tools (vault contents, personal checklist progress, next steps) become available. Use this only if someone says they already have a FinalPeace account and wants their own data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a non-mutating operation, and the description reinforces this by saying the tool 'Explain[s] how to connect' rather than actually performing the connection. It adds context about what becomes available after connecting, which is useful beyond the annotation.
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 long, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every clause contributes either to what the tool does or when it should be used.
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 zero-parameter explanation tool, the description adequately covers what it does and when to invoke it. It could add slightly more detail about the content of the explanation, but the current description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description appropriately does not attempt to document nonexistent parameters.
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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Explain how to connect an existing FinalPeace account' and clearly states the intended outcome ('member tools ... become available'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are about assessment and document requirements rather than account connection.
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 gives an explicit condition for use: 'Use this only if someone says they already have a FinalPeace account and wants their own data.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not name excluded alternatives or mention any alternate tools for users without an existing account.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Look up what a specific US state legally requires to execute a will, financial power of attorney, health care proxy, or living will — how many witnesses, whether a notary is needed, who is barred from witnessing, and whether the state publishes an official form. Use this whenever someone asks what their state requires for estate planning or advance directive paperwork. Covers all 50 states. No account needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | US state as a two-letter code or full name, e.g. 'TX' or 'Texas' | |
| documentType | No | Omit to get requirements for all four document types in that state |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful context: 'Covers all 50 states' and 'No account needed,' plus a description of the output topics (e.g., 'how many witnesses, whether a notary is needed'). This goes beyond the annotations but does not contradict them. It doesn't detail output structure, but there is no output schema to compare.
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 about 60 words, front-loaded with the core action, then usage, then scope. No filler or repetition. It could be slightly tighter by merging the usage sentence, but it is well-structured.
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 simple lookup tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it lists the exact information returned, confirms national coverage, and states no authentication is needed. It doesn't cover error cases or state-specific exceptions, but these are not essential for the tool's purpose.
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 description coverage is 100%: both parameters have descriptive text (e.g., state says 'two-letter code or full name,' documentType says 'Omit to get requirements for all four'). The description reiterates the document types but adds no new parameter-specific nuance, so it meets the baseline without improving it.
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 begins with a specific verb-based purpose: 'Look up what a specific US state legally requires...' and enumerates the exact document types and legal details (witnesses, notary, barred witnesses, official forms). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like assess_estate_planning_gaps (analysis) or get_after_loss_first_steps (post-death guidance).
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?
It explicitly states the trigger: 'Use this whenever someone asks what their state requires for estate planning or advance directive paperwork.' This is a clear when-to-use condition. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternative tools, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the practical checklist of what has to be done after someone dies, organized by when it actually matters: the first 24-48 hours, the first week, the first month, and ongoing. Use this when someone has recently lost a person and is asking what to do, what comes first, or what they might be forgetting. No account needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phase | No | Omit to get all phases; pass one to focus on the immediate horizon |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and openWorldHint false, so safety and closed scope are known. The description adds 'No account needed' (auth requirement) and explains the output organization, going beyond annotations. No 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 concise sentences: first states the tool's purpose and organizational structure, second gives usage guidance and the 'no account' note. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and auth. It lists the phase categories and implies the checklist contents (practical items). Slightly more detail on return format might be helpful, but overall complete.
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 covers 100% of parameters, describing the phase enum and its behavior (omit for all, pass one to focus). The description adds context about the phases but does not further clarify parameter syntax or values beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 returns a practical checklist for after a death, organized by time phases (24-48 hours, week, month, ongoing). This verb-resource scope (get checklist) distinctively differs from sibling tools like assess_estate_planning_gaps or find_state_document_requirements.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: when someone has recently lost a person and asks what to do, what comes first, or what might be forgotten. It does not name alternatives but the sibling tool names suggest different purposes; clear usage context but no exclusionary guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
assess_estate_planning_gapsconnect_finalpeace_accountfind_state_document_requirementsget_after_loss_first_stepsUS company filing obligations, plus a 25-check bookkeeping diagnostic. Sourced, dated, no signup.
US LLC filing fees, deadlines, and name checks for all 50 states — from official sources.
Contract drafting, statute-cited US state law requirements, non-compete checks, risk analysis.
Real-time U.S. medical license verification across all 50 states + DC.
