Retrieve Healthgrades' current popular specialty search suggestions to discover trending medical specialties and search topics.
List popular Healthgrades searches. Returns Healthgrades' current popular specialty search suggestions.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return content ('current popular specialty search suggestions'), which is useful, but it says nothing about whether the list is dynamic, how many entries come back, or that the call is a safe read with no parameters.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action. The second sentence restates the first with more specificity rather than adding new information, which is mild redundancy but not harmful given the length.
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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys what is returned but not the shape, count, or recency of the data. It is minimally adequate rather than 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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter-related guidance is needed or missing.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('List popular Healthgrades searches') and clarifies the payload as popular specialty search suggestions. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from adjacent siblings such as healthgrades_autocomplete or healthgrades_specialties, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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 guidance on when to call this versus healthgrades_autocomplete, healthgrades_specialties, or the search tools that also surface specialty suggestions. The agent gets a capability statement with no routing conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.