Search NHANES variable names and descriptions using case-insensitive regex, filtering by cycle and component. Defaults to 2017-2018 cycle and all components.
Search NHANES variable names/descriptions (regex, case-insensitive) across cycles/components. Defaults to the 2017-2018 cycle and all components.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| cycles | No | ||
| components | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that matching is regex-based and case-insensitive, and that the search defaults to the 2017-2018 cycle and all components. It does not mention return shape or error behavior, but for a read-only search tool, the key search semantics are disclosed.
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 compact sentences with no redundancy. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, followed by the default behavior. Every sentence adds useful information.
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?
The tool is simple and the description covers the main search behavior and defaults. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the return shape is unspecified, and the limit parameter is not given any semantic context. It is adequate for a basic call but leaves some operational ambiguity.
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%, so the description must compensate for all parameter meaning. It partially explains query (searches variable names/descriptions) and cycles/components (scope with defaults), but it does not explain the limit parameter or the expected string formats for cycles/components. This leaves meaningful gaps for a 4-parameter tool.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('NHANES variable names/descriptions') and adds implementation detail (regex, case-insensitive, across cycles/components). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like describe_variable, which targets one variable, and list_cycles/list_files, which list different entities.
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 description provides clear context for use: search when you need to find variables by name or description, and it states defaults for cycles and components. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the search-oriented purpose is evident enough to guide selection among the siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.