list_guidesLists Claim Back’s guides to appealing a Medicare Advantage denial (US), each with its slug, title, one-line summary and link: how to appeal and who can ask, the appeal deadline, the fast appeal when care is ending, and the independent review. Use it to find the guide that answers the user’s question, then read_guide.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the shape of each returned item (slug, title, one-line summary, link), which matters since there is no output schema. It does not discuss ordering or result size, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence states the resource first, then the enumeration of guides, then the routing hint to read_guide. The topic list is slightly long but each item earns its place by signaling catalog coverage, so no real waste.
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?
For a zero-parameter catalog tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed, the fields of each entry, and the next action. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema; baseline for a parameterless tool 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?
States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (Claim Back's appeal guides), with scope narrowed to Medicare Advantage denials in the US. It also enumerates the guide topics covered, so an agent can distinguish this catalog tool from the sibling read_guide without opening a schema.
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?
Explicitly gives the when: 'Use it to find the guide that answers the user's question', and names the follow-up alternative 'then read_guide'. This is a clear two-step routing instruction rather than implied usage.
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.