Access the complete Healthgrades directory of physician specialties. Pull every specialty name and its dedicated directory URL for structured data use.
List Healthgrades physician specialties. Returns every specialty name and directory URL shown on Healthgrades' public A-Z specialty directory.
| 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 the full burden, and it does disclose the returned fields (specialty name + directory URL). However, it says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or whether this enumerates the entire directory or a subset, leaving behavioral gaps for a no-annotation tool.
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 with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the second sentence earns its place by describing the return shape.
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?
With no params, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers what an agent needs: what it lists and what comes back. A note on how it relates to the physician search tools would make it fully complete.
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 the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys.
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 ('Healthgrades physician specialties'), and clarifies the return content (specialty names and directory URLs from the A-Z directory). It implicitly separates itself from healthgrades_physicians_search, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no indication that this is a taxonomy/index lookup that likely feeds other tools. The 'A-Z specialty directory' phrasing hints at browse usage but nothing is made explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.