VA Healthcare Facilities

find_va_facilities

Find VA (Department of Veterans Affairs) facilities by location.

Search for VA medical centers, clinics, benefits offices, cemeteries,
and vet centers. At least one location parameter should be provided.

Args:
    state: Two-letter state abbreviation (e.g., "CA", "TX").
    city: City name to search in.
    zip_code: 5-digit ZIP code to search near.
    facility_type: Type of facility — "health" (medical centers/clinics),
        "benefits" (regional benefits offices), "cemetery" (national
        cemeteries), or "vet_center" (readjustment counseling). Default "health".
    limit: Maximum number of results (default 25, max 200).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`city`	No
`limit`	No
`state`	No
`zip_code`	No
`facility_type`	No	health

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It provides some behavioral constraints like 'At least one location parameter should be provided', the default facility_type, and limit default/max, but it does not disclose response behavior (e.g., sorting, pagination, error conditions) or any side effects. This is a partial disclosure, not comprehensive.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary, followed by a helpful expansion of facility types and parameter constraints. The Args list is concise, well-organized, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool has an output schema, so return values are presumably covered there. The description explains all 5 parameters and important constraints like the location requirement and limit. It omits details on error handling or authentication, but for a search tool this is not a major gap. Overall, it is fairly complete.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema has only titles (0% description coverage), so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains state as a two-letter abbreviation, zip as 5-digit, facility_type with enumerated values and their meanings, and limit with default and max. This exceeds the schema and fully compensates for the lack of descriptions.

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 starts with 'Find VA (Department of Veterans Affairs) facilities by location', which is a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It further enumerates facility types (medical centers, clinics, benefits offices, cemeteries, vet centers) and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools that focus on facility details or services.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage through 'Search for VA medical centers...' and notes 'At least one location parameter should be provided'. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_facility_detail) or provide any exclusion criteria, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

All VA Healthcare Facilities 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

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: finding facilities, getting detailed info, and listing services. Even though get_facility_detail includes services, the tools are not confusing because one is comprehensive and the other is specific.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools use a verb_noun pattern, but there is a minor inconsistency: 'find_va_facilities' uses plural 'facilities' while the other two use singular 'facility'. The verbs 'find' and 'get' are both clear, so the pattern is mostly consistent.

Tool Count4/5

Three tools is on the low end but appropriate for this focused read-only server. Each tool fills a necessary role—search, detail, and services—without unnecessary bloat.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core read-only workflow: find facilities, view details, and check services. Minor gaps exist, such as no search by service type or listing all facilities without a location parameter, but these are not critical for the domain.

Resources

Need Help?