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 read-only list operation, which is straightforward, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. The description does not contradict any annotations, but it is minimal and could benefit from more context.

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 sentences that are front-loaded and efficient, with no wasted words. It directly states the purpose and usage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for basic use. However, it lacks details on output format or any behavioral constraints, which could be helpful for an agent. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in providing full 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 no parameter information is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters, warranting a baseline score of 4 for adequate coverage.

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 action ('List all U.S. states') and the resource ('with their HUD state codes'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, as none appear to be HUD-related except possibly 'hud_list_counties' and 'hud_list_metro_areas', but these are not listed as siblings, so differentiation is not addressed.

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 for usage by stating 'Use these codes with other HUD tools,' which implies when to use this tool (to obtain codes for other HUD operations). It does not specify when not to use it or name explicit alternatives, but the guidance 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.