Bridge summary for one state: total bridges, counts by condition (Good/Fair/Poor), posted and closed counts, scour-critical count, average year built, total deck area. Without a state, returns per-state totals with condition counts for all states.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No | US state postal code, e.g. 'IL' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by enumerating what the summary contains and how omission of state changes the result. It does not mention access requirements, freshness, pagination, or response format, which are minor gaps for a read-only aggregate tool.
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 the primary use case and then the fallback behavior. Every clause adds useful information and there is no redundant exposition.
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 single optional-parameter summary tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned in both modes. It could be slightly richer about data scope or freshness, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter's format is already documented. The description adds value by explaining the semantic effect of omitting the optional state parameter, which the schema alone does not convey.
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 states a specific resource and scope: a bridge summary for one state, with an explicit fallback aggregate when no state is supplied. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_county_summaries and get_bridge by naming the exact summary dimensions returned.
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?
It clearly explains the two usage modes: pass a state to get that state's summary, or omit state to get totals for all states. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_county_summaries, but the mode selection is unambiguous.
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.
