Find Healthgrades location autocomplete suggestions for a city, state, ZIP code, or free-text query, returning clean matches with private metadata and coordinates omitted.
Get Healthgrades location suggestions. Returns location autocomplete suggestions for a city, state, ZIP code, or other free-text location. Private upstream metadata and coordinates are omitted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | Yes | City, state, or ZIP code |
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 the burden. It usefully discloses that 'private upstream metadata and coordinates are omitted', which is behavioral context beyond the schema, but it omits the safety profile (read-only, no side effects) and any rate-limit or auth notes for a tool lacking annotations.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return content, then an omission note. No filler or redundancy; wording is efficient.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input forms, and the shape of the return (autocomplete suggestions), and flags omitted fields. It would be fully complete with a note on read-only behavior or sibling differentiation.
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 100%, so the single 'term' parameter is already documented as 'City, state, or ZIP code'. The description merely restates the acceptable input forms without adding format or syntax detail, which matches the baseline 3 for fully covered schemas.
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 Healthgrades location suggestions') and clarifies it returns autocomplete suggestions for a city/state/ZIP/free-text query. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling healthgrades_autocomplete.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling healthgrades_autocomplete that appears to serve a related purpose. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'location suggestions'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.