Get the official WIC program URL for a US state (official_program_url) with the state WIC agency name and phone from Feed America's state table, plus a Feed America state guide and WIC office list that link to the official program. WIC serves pregnant and postpartum parents and children under 5; the income limit is 185% of the federal poverty level.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | 2-letter US state code. Required. |
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 full burden, and it does disclose the payload shape: official_program_url plus state agency name/phone, a Feed America state guide, and a WIC office list. It does not cover failure behavior for an invalid state code or any rate/source caveats, but for a read-only lookup it discloses the important part.
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-loads the core deliverable in the first sentence and keeps the total to two sentences. The second sentence is eligibility background that helps an agent judge relevance but is not strictly required for invocation, so it is mildly extraneous rather than wasteful.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does so concretely (URL, agency name, phone, guide, office list). For a single-parameter read lookup this is nearly complete; only error behavior for an unrecognized state code is unaddressed.
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?
Only one parameter ('state'), and schema coverage is 100% with a clear '2-letter US state code. Required.' definition. The description adds no format, casing, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource ('Get the official WIC program URL for a US state') and enumerates the returned artifacts (official URL, agency name, phone, state guide, office list). The WIC scoping inherently separates it from the sibling feedam_get_state_snap_portal, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening the 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?
Usage is only implied: 'Get the official WIC program URL for a US state' tells the agent what question this answers, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of the SNAP-portal sibling as an alternative. The eligibility sentence (pregnant/postpartum parents, children under 5, 185% FPL) hints at audience relevance but is background, not routing guidance.
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.