get_state_licensingFind which agency licenses septic installers or pumpers in a U.S. state, get the official license lookup link, and read related licensing Q&A.
Who licenses septic installers/pumpers in a U.S. state, the agency's official license lookup link, and the licensing Q&A published on thesepticguide.com.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | State name or 2-letter code, e.g. 'Texas' or 'TX' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds useful provenance: results include a third-party site's Q&A and an external license lookup link, which signals web/external content. It stops short of saying what happens for an unrecognized state or how fresh the licensing data is.
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?
One compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It reads as a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, but nothing is wasted.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately previews the return payload (agency, official link, Q&A). Minor gaps remain around not-found handling and data currency, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it is missing.
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 coverage is 100% with a single 'state' parameter that already documents accepting a name or 2-letter code. The description only echoes the U.S.-state scope, adding no format, normalization, or error-handling detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States precisely what the tool returns: the licensing authority for septic installers/pumpers in a U.S. state, the agency's official lookup link, and licensing Q&A from thesepticguide.com. That scope clearly separates it from list_states (enumeration) and search_septic_companies (company lookup).
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?
Usage is only implied by the stated output; there is no explicit guidance such as 'call this after list_states to resolve a state' or what to do when the state is unknown. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so the agent must infer when this beats search_septic_companies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.