evictions_list_statesUse this when you need every place the service covers, or the exact code or slug of a state. Takes no input. Returns the 50 states and DC, each with its two-letter code, name, slug and page on the site. Do not use this for one state’s eviction rules (use evictions_get_state_eviction_facts). No key needed.
| 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered. The description adds context the annotations don't: 'Takes no input' and 'No key needed', plus the exact result set (50 states and DC). It doesn't mention result size limits or ordering, which keeps it 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?
Three tight sentences: purpose/coverage first, then the input and return shape, then the exclusion. Every sentence carries routing or behavioral information, and nothing is redundant with the title.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return payload (50 states plus DC, each with code, name, slug, page). For a zero-parameter lookup tool, an agent has everything needed to select and call it.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly reinforces this with 'Takes no input', leaving no ambiguity that this is a call-with-no-arguments tool.
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+resource (list states) and goes further by enumerating the coverage ('every place the service covers') and the payload fields (two-letter code, name, slug, page). An agent can distinguish it from evictions_get_state_eviction_facts and evictions_resolve_jurisdiction 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?
Explicit when-to-use ('you need every place the service covers, or the exact code or slug of a state') and an explicit when-not-to-use that names the alternative sibling (evictions_get_state_eviction_facts) for single-state rules. This is the exact routing information an agent needs.
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.