List GoodRx pet medications for cats and dogs, returning drugs with information pages and slugs for /goodrx/drug-info?audience=pets.
List GoodRx pet medications. Returns the drugs that have a GoodRx cat and dog information page, with slugs for /goodrx/drug-info with audience=pets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (drugs with cat/dog info pages) and the slug convention for /goodrx/drug-info with audience=pets, which helps downstream calls. However it never states this is a read-only, no-parameter listing or describes volume/ordering.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, followed by the distinguishing scope detail. No padding or redundant restatement of the name.
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?
For a no-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers what it returns and even the URL slug semantics needed to use the results. It lacks only guidance on result size/ordering, which is minor.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description doesn't need to explain inputs.
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 pet medications', and clarifies the scope: only drugs that have a cat/dog info page. It distinguishes itself from the broader goodrx_drugs by the pet audience, though it never names a sibling as an alternative.
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 implied by the domain (use this to browse pet-specific drugs), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing to alternatives like goodrx_drugs or goodrx_condition_drugs. The slug note hints at follow-up usage but stops short of guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.