Retrieve detailed skin condition information by SNOMED CT code, including severity and category, to provide accurate medical terminology.
Look up a medical concept by SNOMED CT code. Returns detailed information about skin conditions including severity and category. Use this to provide accurate medical terminology.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| snomedCode | Yes | SNOMED CT code (e.g., '372244006' for melanoma) |
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=true, so the description doesn't need to state that it's read-only. It adds the scope (skin conditions) and content (severity, category), but does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., only handles skin codes, behavior on invalid codes) or the return structure. It does not contradict 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, followed by a brief usage note. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is highly efficient and easy to scan.
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 output schema, the description must convey what the tool returns. It mentions 'detailed information about skin conditions including severity and category,' which gives a high-level view but lacks specifics like exact fields, formatting, or error handling. The scope (skin conditions) is stated but not justified, and no guidance is given for invalid codes or edge cases. The description is adequate but leaves room for ambiguity.
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 schema provides full documentation for snomedCode with an example, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra detail about the parameter format, validation, or acceptable code ranges, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.
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 action (look up), the resource (medical concept), and the key identifier (SNOMED CT code). It also specifies the domain (skin conditions) and the output content (severity, category), which distinguishes it from siblings like search_medical_concepts (text search) and map_snomed_to_icd10 (code mapping). The purpose is unambiguous.
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 provides a usage context ('Use this to provide accurate medical terminology') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like search_medical_concepts or get_condition_risk_factors. It implies a read-only informational lookup but lacks exclusions or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.