list_statesAll states with the number of currently published facilities in each, plus the state directory URL. Counts are computed live.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| states | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true establishes the safe read nature. The description adds that counts are computed live and include only currently published facilities, which is useful behavioral context 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?
Two sentences, no filler; front-loads 'All states' and includes the key data points (facility counts, directory URL, live computation). Every phrase 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?
This is a simple no-argument list tool with an output schema available. The description covers the essential return content and the live-count behavior, and the readOnlyHint and output schema handle the rest, making it sufficiently 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 tool has zero parameters, so the description need not add parameter semantics. The schema fully covers with 100% coverage (empty properties), and the baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 title and description clearly state the tool lists all states with counts of currently published facilities and state directory URLs. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_facility_types and list_insurers by resource and included data.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the sibling search/list tools. However, the scope ('all states') and lack of parameters imply it is for a direct listing task, so usage is implicit rather than clearly guided.
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 targets a distinct action and resource: search vs. get, experts vs. facilities, and enumerations for specific filter dimensions. There is no overlap or ambiguity between tools like list_browse_categories and list_facility_types because their descriptions clearly differentiate scope.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get, list, or search followed by a clear object. No style mixing or vague verbs like 'process' or 'do_thing', making the set highly predictable.
Nine tools is well within the ideal range for a directory server. Each tool serves a distinct purpose in the workflow of understanding, browsing, and retrieving facilities/experts, without unnecessary bloat or an overly thin surface.
The set covers the full lifecycle of a directory lookup: understanding care levels, enumerating filter values, searching across two entity types, and retrieving full details. Missing operations like create/update/delete are not applicable for a read-only directory, so no critical gaps exist.