get_facilityLook up one facility by {type, id}. Returns the index record plus canonical URLs and which detail tools work for it. Hospital ids are CMS CCNs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Facility id (hospitals: 6-char CCN; systems: slug). | |
| type | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what it returns (index record, canonical URLs, applicable detail tools) and adds a useful note about hospital IDs being CMS CCNs. However, it doesn't disclose error behavior, rate limits, or the read-only nature explicitly, which would be expected without annotations.
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 core action and parameters. The first sentence states what the tool does; the second explains the return value. No redundant words, every clause 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?
Without an output schema, the description explains the return value clearly (index record, canonical URLs, which detail tools work). It also relates to sibling tools by mentioning 'detail tools.' It could mention error handling or caveats for certain types, but for a simple lookup tool, it's fairly 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?
The schema already documents the id parameter (6-char CCN; slug) and type enum, with 50% coverage. The description repeats and reinforces the hospital ID note but doesn't meaningfully expand on parameter usage beyond what the schema provides. It fails to compensate for the undocumented type parameter semantics.
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 ('Look up one facility') and identifies the resource by type and id. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it returns 'canonical URLs and which detail tools work for it,' which is unique.
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 clearly says when to use: when you have a specific type and id. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the note about 'which detail tools work' implies it serves as an entry point to detail tools. No exclusions are stated, so it loses a point.
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.
Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: search discovers facilities, get_facility provides metadata and tool compatibility, get_facility_profile returns detailed profiles, and the two hospital-specific tools cover clinicians and pricing. There is no meaningful overlap between these five operations.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_facility, get_facility_profile, get_hospital_clinicians, get_hospital_prices, and search_facilities. The naming is uniform and predictable.
With five tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of facility lookup and hospital-specific data retrieval. Each tool covers a distinct aspect without redundancy or bloat.
The set covers search, lookup, profiles, and specialized hospital data (clinicians and prices), providing a complete workflow for hospital facilities. Minor gaps exist for non-hospital facility types, which only have profile access and no specialized data tools, but this appears driven by data availability rather than an oversight.