List GoodRx Health articles in a section and optional topic, most recently modified first; returns article paths, URLs, and dates with paging totals. Use paths with goodrx_health_article.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| topic | No | ||
| section | Yes | ||
| page_size | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the sort order ('most recently modified first') and a summary of returned fields (paths, URLs, dates, paging totals). It does not discuss rate limits or paging semantics in detail, keeping 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?
Front-loaded with verb and resource, followed by a tight clause on ordering/returns and a one-line handoff to the sibling. No filler; every clause earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description is nearly complete for a list tool, with only the paging parameters left unspecified in both schema and description.
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% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies that 'section' is required and 'topic' is optional, and 'paging totals' hints at paging, but 'page' and 'page_size' semantics and defaults are left entirely undocumented.
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 (List) and resource (GoodRx Health articles) with its scoping (section, optional topic) and ordering (most recently modified first). It also names the sibling goodrx_health_article for the detail step, letting an agent distinguish it from the singular article tool without opening either 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?
The closing sentence 'Use paths with goodrx_health_article' explicitly routes the agent to the follow-up tool and implies this is the enumeration entry point. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer other GoodRx siblings (e.g. goodrx_health_topics) or any exclusion conditions.
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.
