code_lookup_basicLook up basic metadata for a medical code—code type, description, category, and active status—to verify or enrich healthcare billing records; free and no API key required.
Look up basic metadata for a medical code: code, codeType, description, category, isActive. Basic metadata only. Free, no API key required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Medical code to look up (e.g., "M79.3") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it says the lookup is free, needs no API key, and returns only basic metadata fields.
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 short and front-loaded, with the core action and returned fields stated first. The phrase 'Basic metadata only' slightly repeats the opening, but overall it 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 operation with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description provides enough context by naming the returned fields and noting cost/auth constraints. It does not explain sibling routing or error behavior, but those are minor gaps for this tool's complexity.
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%, and the sole parameter is already documented with an example. The description repeats that a medical code is looked up but adds no extra format, validation, or edge-case details beyond the schema.
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 clear verb and resource: looking up basic metadata for a medical code, and lists the returned fields. It distinguishes itself somewhat with 'Basic metadata only' but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling code_lookup or code_lookup_batch tools.
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 phrase 'Basic metadata only. Free, no API key required' implies the tool is for lightweight, unauthenticated lookups. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not point to code_lookup for richer results.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.