list_plansList the All4Clinic subscription plans on sale: monthly price in BRL, highlights, what each plan includes and the link to sign up for it. Pass users and/or units (how many people use the system, how many branches) to get the cheapest plan that fits in 'recommended_plan'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| units | No | How many clinic branches. Optional. | |
| users | No | How many people will log in (doctors, reception, staff). Optional. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / unitsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "How many clinic branches. Optional.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / usersAdded value: +{
+ "description": "How many people will log in (doctors, reception, staff). Optional.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds return-value detail (currency BRL, highlights, inclusions, signup link) and discloses the extra 'recommended_plan' field produced when users/units are supplied — context not available anywhere else since there is no output schema.
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 sentences, both front-loaded: the first enumerates what is returned, the second explains the optional-parameter behavior. No filler.
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?
Without an output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the fields and the derived 'recommended_plan'. A minor gap remains around output shape and whether all plans or only fitting ones are returned.
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 100%, so the schema documents both parameters. The description nevertheless adds meaning the schema lacks: that users and units are optional and that supplying them triggers computation of the cheapest fitting plan in 'recommended_plan'.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: list All4Clinic subscription plans with monthly price in BRL, highlights, inclusions and signup link. The domain is clearly distinct from help/FAQ siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Gives clear context: use it to see plans on sale, and pass users/units when the caller wants a fitting recommendation. It doesn't state exclusions or contrast with get_signup_info, but the intended usage is unambiguous.
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.