find_locationsFilter one public state location shard by city, ZIP, provider, or access field. Does not claim appointment availability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | No | ||
| city | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| access | No | ||
| provider | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context that data is public and appointment availability is not claimed, but it omits return format, pagination, or other operational details.
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?
Two short sentences communicate the primary action and an important caveat with no filler or redundancy. The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded.
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?
With six parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, a single sentence plus caveat is insufficient. The description lacks detail on result contents, filter combination rules, state handling, and pagination/limit behavior.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description names four of six parameters (city, ZIP, provider, access) as filters. It does not explain 'state' or 'limit' semantics, leaving some parameters under-specified.
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 a specific verb ('filter') and names the resource ('public state location shard') along with filter dimensions (city, ZIP, provider, access). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on location lookup and explicitly disclaiming appointment availability.
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?
It clearly states that this tool filters public locations and should not be used for appointment availability checks. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide broader when-not-to-use guidance beyond the availability caveat.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect: locations, range context, and test catalog. There is no overlap in purpose, making selection unambiguous.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (find_locations, get_range_context, search_tests) with snake_case throughout.
With 3 tools, the set is well-scoped for a niche domain. Each tool serves a clear function without redundancy or bloat.
The set covers core browsing and context needs, but lacks transactional features like appointment booking or ordering. However, for an informational server, coverage is adequate with minor gaps.