Retrieve a complete NFIP flood insurance claim record by providing its unique claim ID. Returns full claim details or an error if the ID is not found.
Look up a single NFIP flood claim by its unique claim ID.
Args: claim_id: The claim's unique identifier (UUID string).
Returns: The full claim record, or an error message if not found.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim_id | Yes |
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 behavioral burden. It signals a read-only operation via 'Look up' and discloses both success behavior ('Returns the full claim record') and failure behavior ('error message if not found'). This is adequate for a simple get operation, though it does not discuss auth or other edge cases.
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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, then Args, then Returns. Every line adds necessary information, and there is no filler or repetition.
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 lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what the tool does, what the parameter means, what is returned, and what happens if the claim is not found.
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 0% and the schema only describes claim_id as a string. The description fully compensates by explaining that claim_id is the claim's unique identifier and a UUID string, adding meaningful format and semantic detail beyond the raw 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?
The description uses the specific verb 'Look up' and identifies the resource as a 'single NFIP flood claim' identified by its unique claim ID. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_claims, which implies searching rather than exact-ID lookup.
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 clearly establishes the intended use case: call this when you have a specific claim ID and want the full record for that single claim. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like using search_claims when the ID is unknown, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.