List one Healthgrades Health A-Z topic's articles by topic slug, most recently modified first; returns article URLs, slugs, and dates with paging totals. Use topic=drugs for drug articles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| topic | 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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: the sort order (most recently modified first) and that results carry paging totals. It does not state rate limits or pagination limits, keeping it from 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?
One front-loaded sentence carrying scope, ordering and return content, followed by a single actionable hint. No filler, nothing repeated from structured fields unnecessarily.
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 need not be spelled out, and annotations cover safety. However, with 3 parameters at 0% schema coverage, the absence of any guidance on page/page_size for a paging-enabled listing tool leaves a real gap for correct invocation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the required topic parameter (a slug, with 'drugs' as a special value), but page and page_size are left entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description. Partial compensation only.
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), a precisely scoped resource (one Healthgrades Health A-Z topic's articles, by topic slug), and the ordering (most recently modified first). This distinguishes it from the singular sibling healthgrades_health_article without the agent 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?
It offers one concrete usage hint ('Use topic=drugs for drug articles'), which is genuinely useful, but it never says when to prefer this list tool over healthgrades_health_article (detail) or healthgrades_health_topics, and names no exclusions. Usage is implied rather than stated.
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.
