medicare_coverage_statesList CMS Coverage API state identifiers used to scope local Medicare coverage searches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| states | Yes | ||
| returned | Yes | ||
| interpretation | Yes |
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 indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, which cover safety and side effects. The description adds the context that it returns 'state identifiers for local coverage,' which is useful but not essential beyond annotations.
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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the exact purpose and usage context efficiently.
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?
The description is complete for a simple tool with no inputs and an output schema. It clearly states what the tool returns and its purpose, which is sufficient for an agent to understand its role among many Medicare sibling tools.
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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying that the output consists of state identifiers for local coverage, which compensates for the lack of parameters.
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 the resource 'CMS Coverage API state identifiers' with the specific purpose 'used to scope local Medicare coverage searches.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like medicare_lcd_search or medicare_nca_search, which require state identifiers but do not list them.
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 that this tool should be used to obtain state identifiers before performing local coverage searches with other Medicare tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, leaving usage somewhat implicit.
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.
The server mixes Medicare-specific tools with many unrelated general-purpose tools (e.g., bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, remember), and there are multiple similar ask_pipeworx variants. This makes it difficult for an agent to distinguish which tool is appropriate for a given task without confusion.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern. Some use a medicare_ prefix with underscores, others use generic verbs like forget, recall, or compound names like ask_pipeworx, deep_research. There is no uniform verb_noun or noun_verb structure.
57 tools is excessive for a server ostensibly focused on 'Medicare Coverage'. Many tools (e.g., bet_research, polymarket_edge_tracker, scan_dependency) are unrelated to Medicare and should be in separate servers, inflating the count and diluting focus.
The Medicare-specific tools cover a broad range: NCDs, LCDs, NCAs, enrollment, DME, Part D, hospital, outpatient, post-acute, and provider data. Minor gaps include Medicare Advantage (Part C) and Medicare Supplement, but the coverage is largely comprehensive.