Search hospitals quality data by state, city, ZIP, or CMS star rating. Answers: which hospitals meet quality thresholds in a market? Source: CMS Care Compare, monthly refresh. [price: $0.02/call]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| zip_prefix | No | ||
| overall_rating_max | No | ||
| overall_rating_min | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions data source and refresh frequency but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. For a search tool, the lack of safety/permissions context is a significant gap.
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 plus a price note, front-loaded with purpose and supported with a concrete question. Every element earns its place with zero 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?
The tool has 7 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema. The description does not explain return values, pagination, or result format. Given moderate complexity, the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly use the tool.
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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description only vaguely mentions state, city, ZIP, and 'star rating' filters without explaining any parameter semantics (e.g., limit/offset pagination, rating min/max meaning). It adds marginal value over the parameter names but insufficiently compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'hospitals quality data' with specific filtering dimensions (state, city, ZIP, CMS star rating). It answers a concrete user question and distinguishes from sibling tools like carecompare_hospitals_byCcn by emphasizing search across location and rating criteria.
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 provides a clear usage context ('which hospitals meet quality thresholds in a market?') but does not explicitly exclude cases like looking up a specific hospital by CCN or mention alternative tools. The omission of when-not-to-use costs a point.
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.