Retrieve registered bed capacity per facility by state, year, and month, with inpatient and complementary bed types reported separately.
Registered capacity by facility; inpatient/complementary bed types remain separate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uf | Yes | ||
| year | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| month | Yes | ||
| family | No | LT | |
| municipality | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations and no output schema mean the description carries full behavioral burden, but it only states a data-content nuance. It omits read-only status, permission needs, pagination/limit behavior, and return shape for a six-parameter retrieval tool.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the bed-type caveat is clearly attached. It is terse for a six-parameter tool, but that under-specification is better captured under contextual completeness than as verbosity.
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?
Given six parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too incomplete. It conveys the dataset subject but little of what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.
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 0% across six parameters, so the description needed to explain uf, year, month, limit, family, and municipality. It adds only vague domain context ('facility', 'bed types') and leaves required parameters and abbreviations unexplained.
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 names the resource and dimension: registered capacity by facility, with inpatient/complementary bed types kept separate. It lacks an explicit action verb and sibling contrast, but the purpose is still clear enough for an agent to recognize the dataset.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool instead of siblings like dataset_info, dataset_coverage, or geographic_signals, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Scope is only implied by 'by facility' and the bed-type note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.