Search snf quality data by state, city, ZIP, or CMS star rating. Answers: which snf 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 the full burden. It mentions data source and price but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. For a search tool, this is insufficient.
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?
The description is two sentences, both front-loaded with core purpose. The second sentence adds context on source and pricing without extra fluff. However, it could be better structured with parameter details.
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 no output schema and 7 parameters, the description lacks information on return fields, pagination, or behavior when no results are found. It does not address how filters interact (AND vs OR). The context of sibling tools is provided but not leveraged to guide usage.
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 groups parameters by category (state, city, ZIP, star rating) without explaining individual parameters like limit, offset, or how multiple parameters combine. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema itself.
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 it searches for skilled nursing facility (SNF) quality data by state, city, ZIP, or CMS star rating, distinguishing it from sibling tools like carecompare_snf_byCcn which searches by CCN. The verb 'Search' and resource 'snf quality data' are specific.
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 answers the question 'which snf meet quality thresholds in a market?' indicating when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like carecompare_snf_byCcn for specific facility lookups. The source and refresh note provide useful context but do not fully guide on alternatives.
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.