US Government Open Data MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a list operation, which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose details like pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. The mention of CBSA codes for entity_id adds some context, but behavioral traits are minimally covered.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a practical usage note. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks completeness for a reference tool. It doesn't explain what the list includes (e.g., all CBSAs, filtered), return format, or how to handle the output, leaving gaps in context.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description adds value by explaining the output's utility (CBSA codes for entity_id), which goes beyond the schema, but doesn't detail return format or structure.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('metropolitan/CBSA areas'), providing a specific purpose. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on HUD tools rather than BEA, BLS, or other datasets, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other HUD tools like hud_list_counties or hud_list_states.

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 implies usage by mentioning that CBSA codes can be used as entity_id in HUD tools, suggesting it's a reference tool for other operations. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other list tools like hud_list_states) or any prerequisites.

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