searchSearch public Verzi pages for a HCPCS code, an LCD, an article, or denial language. Each result has an id, a title, and a verzi.health URL. No sign-in required. Codes only, no patient data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | HCPCS code, LCD or article id, or words from a title. e.g. E0601 or L33718 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: no authentication needed, the result shape (id, title, verzi.health URL), and the scope restriction to codes with no patient data. Pagination or result limits remain unstated.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is searchable, followed by result shape and constraints. No filler and nothing redundant.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation. Combined with annotations covering safety and the description covering auth, scope, and query types, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single query parameter is fully documented with examples. The description adds marginal value by listing 'denial language' as a valid query type, but otherwise restates the schema's own examples; baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Search) and resource (public Verzi pages) and enumerates what can be queried: HCPCS code, LCD, article, or denial language. That separates it from check_dme_coverage (a coverage lookup) and fetch (retrieval), though neither sibling is named explicitly.
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?
'No sign-in required' and 'Codes only, no patient data' set context and scope, so usage is implied: use this to locate a page before retrieving it. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative for cases like fetching the full page or checking coverage.
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.