US Government Open Data MCP

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context: it's a 'general-purpose query' that 'supports filtering by any field,' which clarifies scope beyond what annotations convey. However, it doesn't mention behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination details (though offset/limit are in schema).

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded effectively.

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 the tool's complexity (query with filtering/pagination), annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint), and schema fully documents parameters. The description adds necessary context about dataset discovery via cms_search. Without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values, but for a query tool with good annotations and schema, this is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic value: it mentions filtering by 'any field' (implied by filter_field/filter_value) and references cms_search for dataset IDs (relevant to dataset_id). Since schema does the heavy lifting, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'General-purpose query against any CMS provider dataset by dataset identifier.' It specifies the verb ('query'), resource ('CMS provider dataset'), and mechanism ('by dataset identifier'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools (like cms_hospitals or cms_nursing_homes) beyond mentioning cms_search for dataset discovery.

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?

The description provides clear context: 'Use cms_search to find available datasets and their IDs.' This gives explicit guidance on when to use a sibling tool first. It doesn't specify when not to use this tool or alternatives beyond cms_search, but the context is sufficient for basic usage.

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