Retrieve key risk factors such as family history, skin type, and UV exposure for a condition using its SNOMED CT code to support informed health decisions.
Get risk factors associated with a specific condition. Returns factors like family history, skin type, UV exposure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| snomedCode | Yes | SNOMED CT code of the condition |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value by giving examples of the returned factors (family history, skin type, UV exposure), which informs the agent about the nature of the output without contradicting 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?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by examples. No wasted words.
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 read-only lookup with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information about what is returned (a list of risk factors with examples). The openWorldHint annotation covers non-exhaustiveness, and the tool is simple enough that no further details are needed.
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 input schema fully describes the single parameter snomedCode with a description. The tool description does not add additional semantic detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'risk factors associated with a specific condition', and specifies that it takes a condition code. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_risk_factors which focus on a user's risk profile rather than a condition.
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 implies usage for a specific condition via SNOMED code, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. However, the context is clear enough that an agent would know to use this when they have a condition code and need its risk factors, as opposed to user-specific tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.