Search Medicare-certified nursing homes from CMS Nursing Home Compare. Returns name, address, ownership, certification status, total beds, and quality measures.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 25) | |
| state | No | Two-letter state code (e.g. 'CA', 'NY') | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset (default 0) | |
| name_contains | No | Partial provider name match |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +100Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / limit / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"Input schema / properties / offset / minimumAdded value: +0Input schema / properties / offset / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, open-world search, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope qualifier 'Medicare-certified' and lists return fields, but says nothing about pagination behavior, rate limits, or result completeness — a 3 with annotations carrying the safety burden.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and source. No filler, though the return-field list is somewhat boilerplate given no output schema.
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?
Adequate for a read-only search whose annotations and full schema coverage carry the load. However, with no output schema and no usage/exclusion guidance, an agent can't distinguish this from the hospital/hospice CMS searches without guessing.
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% with clear descriptions for limit, state, offset, and name_contains. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?
Names a specific verb (Search) and resource (Medicare-certified nursing homes) and states the data source (CMS Nursing Home Compare), plus enumerates returned fields. It doesn't differentiate from siblings, though the cms_* family names make the resource self-evident.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling cms_hospital_search / cms_home_health_search alternatives. The agent must infer that this tool covers nursing homes specifically.
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.