exclusion_sourcesList the loaded exclusion sources (OIG LEIE and SAM.gov), their row counts, load dates, load completeness and whether a bulk reseed is due. Free. Screening itself is paid: exclusion_check per name, or exclusion_batch_check for 2-200 at once ($0.30/$1.00/$3.00 by size).
| 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 only supply readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the operation is free, the freshness signals returned (load dates, completeness, whether a bulk reseed is due), and the exact cost tiers of the downstream paid tools. It stops short of describing output shape in detail, which a 4 reflects.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what is listed, followed by cost positioning against siblings. Every clause carries distinct information with no repetition.
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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is returned (counts, dates, completeness, reseed flag), that it is free, and which paid sibling to call for actual screening.
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 per the baseline there are no parameter semantics to explain; the description does not need to and does not attempt to. Baseline 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 and resource ('List the loaded exclusion sources (OIG LEIE and SAM.gov)') and enumerates exactly what the listing contains: row counts, load dates, completeness, reseed status. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling screening tools by naming them and their function.
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 routes the agent: this tool is free metadata, while actual screening is paid via exclusion_check (single name) or exclusion_batch_check (2-200 names, tiered pricing). When-to-use and the alternatives are both stated outright.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.