Retrieve reviewed fixed ecological proxy activity data by state and year, optionally filtered by municipality, to inspect aggregate healthcare signals without flexible CID/procedure intersections.
Reviewed fixed ecological proxy cells. No flexible CID/procedure intersections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uf | Yes | ||
| year | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| proxy | Yes | ||
| 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 are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it never clarifies whether this is a read, whether results are paginated (the limit parameter defaults to 30), what the default ordering is, or what the response contains. 'Reviewed' weakly implies a read, but nothing about permissions, side effects, or result shape is disclosed.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy: the text is front-loaded with a vague verdict-like phrase instead of the operation and scope an agent needs first.
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?
A five-parameter, three-required query tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no enum constraints needs the description to carry nearly everything, and it carries almost nothing. The agent has no basis to choose this tool over ecological_hits or geographic_signals, or to construct a valid call.
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 five parameters, including three required ones (proxy, year, uf) plus limit and municipality, and the description explains none of them. The agent gets no guidance on format for year or uf, no meaning for proxy, and no hint that limit controls page size.
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?
"Reviewed fixed ecological proxy cells" restates the tool name in obscure domain jargon without a clear operation or resource outcome, and an agent cannot tell what it would actually receive. The only differentiating statement is a negative ('No flexible CID/procedure intersections') that references a sibling tool which does not exist in the provided list.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to any of the six listed siblings (dataset_coverage, ecological_hits, geographic_signals, etc.). The single exclusion clause hints at a scope boundary but does not tell the agent which conditions should select this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.