Returns a state's surveillance coverage dates, flag thresholds, emergency department regions, and wastewater sites for interpreting COVID-19, influenza, and RSV data.
Coverage dates, flag thresholds, ED regions (HSAs), and wastewater sites for one state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | Two-letter postal code, e.g. "SC" or "DC". |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden; 'describe' plus the metadata content list reasonably conveys a read-only informational tool with no side effects. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only or what happens with an invalid/unknown state code, but with an output schema present the response contents need not be restated.
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?
A single compact sentence with the content categories front-loaded and no filler. It is slightly noun-phrase-like rather than verb-led, 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 metadata tool with a fully documented schema and an output schema, this is close to sufficient: the agent knows what it returns and what it takes. The remaining gap is routing guidance relative to describe_measures and the other siblings.
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% and the single 'state' parameter is documented with a two-letter postal code example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds the implicit scoping of 'one state' — no extra semantics 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?
Names the resource precisely (per-state coverage metadata) and enumerates the four content areas it returns: coverage dates, flag thresholds, ED regions (HSAs), and wastewater sites. The implicit verb 'describe' is clear from the name, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like describe_measures, so an agent must infer that this is state-level rather than measure-level metadata.
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: an agent can guess this is the lookup to run before requesting series for a state, but the description never says when to call it, what it precedes, or how it differs from describe_measures.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.