Skip to main content
Glama

get_available_years

Lists the years available in the SIH-SUS dataset and indicates data freshness, including per-year attribute changes like CID revision and race availability.

Instructions

Retorna os anos disponíveis nos dados do SIH-SUS carregados e o frescor dos cubos em relação ao espelho healthbr-data (freshness.status: current, stale, unknown, pending ou disabled; quando stale, lista por ano as partições reeditadas pelo MS, regeneradas, retiradas ou novas na janela). Por ano, o que muda entre as eras do SIH: race_available (raça/cor só de 2008), cid_revision (9 = CID-9 de 6 dígitos em 1992–1997, 10 = CID-10; 1997 tem as duas), icsap_list_revision (cid9-derivada, não oficial, em 1992–1997), uf_basis (arquivo em 1992–1997, residencia de 1998), municipality_available, currency e records_date_imputed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.12.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the freshness status values and the per-year attribute differences, providing rich context. It does not specify the exact return structure (list vs object), but the content is thoroughly described.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense paragraph with extensive technical detail. While it covers necessary information for a metadata tool, it is not front-loaded or easily scannable, and could be restructured for clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Since there is no output schema, the description explains the main output: available years, freshness, and per-year differences. It omits the exact response format, but for a listing tool this is likely inferable. It is otherwise complete for the tool's purpose.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline score of 4 applies, and the description appropriately does not add unnecessary parameter details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it returns available years in the loaded SIH-SUS data, plus freshness status and per-year differences. This distinct purpose differentiates it from sibling tools focused on analytics or list operations, and uses a specific verb ('Retorna') and resource ('anos disponíveis').

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the nature of the tool (listing available years) implies it is a prerequisite for filtering by year in other queries. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.