list_health_topicsBrowse the ODPHP/health.gov catalog — list all health topics or all categories (Cancer, Diabetes, Heart Health, Screening Tests, …). Use to discover what guidance exists before searching.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | "topic" (default) or "category". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "category"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "topic"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the data source (ODPHP/health.gov) and that it returns a catalog of all items. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful scope beyond the structured fields.
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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and examples. Every word is meaningful; no filler or repetition. Highly efficient.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, safe annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does and how to use it, though it does not detail the return format (e.g., names vs. IDs). Without an output schema, a brief mention of output structure would be slightly more helpful, but not essential.
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 input schema covers the single parameter 'type' with a description. The description adds concrete examples of categories (Cancer, Diabetes, Heart Health) and clarifies the default value of 'topic'. This enhances understanding of what the parameter values represent, adding value over the schema alone.
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?
The description clearly states the tool lists all health topics or categories from the ODPHP/health.gov catalog, using specific verbs ('browse', 'list') and resource references. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_health_topics by noting its use for discovery before searching.
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?
The description explicitly advises using this tool to discover what guidance exists before searching, implying it is for broad overview rather than specific queries. It names the two modes (topics, categories) but could more explicitly contrast with search or get tools.
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.