Pharmacies near a place for the package on screen — called by the FineRx card itself.
``where`` is the place as typed in the card (a ZIP, a city or an address):
used for this one request, never stored. Not for the model.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | No | ||
| form | No | ||
| slug | No | ||
| where | No | ||
| family | No | ||
| locale | No | ||
| quantity | No | ||
| strength | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / whereAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Where"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: `where` is used for only this request and never stored, and the call is tied to the FineRx card. This is useful behavioral information not present in the 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?
The description is short, front-loaded with the purpose, and mostly free of filler. The trailing 'Not for the model' line is slightly ambiguous and could be better integrated, but overall the structure is efficient.
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?
While the purpose and privacy note are helpful, the tool has eight optional parameters with no descriptions, no output schema, and no clear relationship to `find_nearby_pharmacies`. An agent would struggle to know how to populate most parameters or what the response shape is.
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 description explains only the `where` parameter, noting it is a ZIP, city, or address used transiently. With 0% schema description coverage and eight parameters total, the description was expected to compensate but leaves the other seven parameters entirely undocumented.
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 first sentence states that the tool provides pharmacies near a place for the package on screen, which is a specific resource and outcome. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling `find_nearby_pharmacies`, so cross-tool differentiation is missing.
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 clearly says the tool is called by the FineRx card itself and includes 'Not for the model,' giving an agent context about when this tool is appropriate. It does not name alternatives such as `find_nearby_pharmacies`, but the invocation context is fairly explicit.
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.