Returns public professional fields and practice locations from a Healthgrades physician profile. Requires a canonical Healthgrades physician profile URL; patient-authored review text is omitted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
| 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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: only public professional fields and practice locations are returned, and patient-authored review text is deliberately omitted, which sets expectations about completeness.
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 tightly packed sentences with the resource/scope stated first and the input requirement plus omission caveat second. Nothing is redundant.
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 structure needn't be explained; the description complements it by stating scope and exclusions. For a single-parameter read tool this is close to complete, though it omits any error/not-found behavior.
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% and the sole 'url' param has no description, so the description carries the burden. It specifies that a canonical Healthgrades physician profile URL is required, which meaningfully narrows the input beyond a generic string. It could still say more about accepted URL formats.
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 ('Returns') and resource ('public professional fields and practice locations from a Healthgrades physician profile'), making it clear this is a detail-fetch tool rather than a search. It does not name a sibling such as healthgrades_physicians_search, so it stops short of a 5.
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 requirement for a canonical Healthgrades physician profile URL implies this is used to expand a profile obtained elsewhere (e.g. after search), but no explicit when-to-use or alternative is named. Usage is inferable 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.
