US Government Open Data MCP

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

The annotations include 'readOnlyHint: true,' which already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds context by specifying the return format ('dataset IDs, titles, and descriptions') and the workflow with 'cms_query,' but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or error handling. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides some additional value but lacks rich behavioral details, warranting a baseline score.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence defines the purpose and return format, and the second sentence provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and accurately.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, read-only operation), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and return format, and annotations handle safety. However, it lacks details on output structure (e.g., pagination or error responses), which could be useful for an agent, but the simplicity of the tool makes this a minor gap.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'keyword' parameter fully documented in the schema (including examples like 'hospital'). The description mentions 'by keyword' but doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as search logic or case sensitivity. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 with a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('CMS provider data datasets'), and scope ('by keyword'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'cms_query' (which fetches data) and other CMS tools like 'cms_hospitals' or 'cms_nursing_homes' (which are specific dataset queries). It explicitly mentions the return format ('dataset IDs, titles, and descriptions'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it states 'Use the ID with cms_query to fetch data,' indicating that this tool is for searching and identifying datasets, while 'cms_query' is for retrieving actual data. This clarifies the workflow and distinguishes it from other search tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'search_datasets' or 'bls_search_series'), though it doesn't explicitly exclude other CMS tools, the context is sufficient.

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