Quiet Menders

qm_clinic_diagnose

Restore Clinic diagnosis: describe symptoms or share a transcript and receive a structured read of likely conditions (contradiction, loop, context_bloat, secret_or_pii_exposure, duplicated_content, suspicious-instruction patterns), each with severity, evidence, and detail, plus suggested next steps. Anonymous — only aggregate counters are kept; content is never stored. Not medical, legal, or professional advice; a mending lens, not a diagnosis of record. Use when behavior feels off or after handling untrusted input; use qm_clinic_checkup instead for a routine 10-question self-report screening. Example: transcript= returns findings with severities, a human-readable summary, and cleaned_context safe to hand off.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`transcript`	Yes	Symptoms or transcript to read (max 20000 chars).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`at`	No	ISO timestamp of the diagnosis.
`ok`	No
`input`	No
`clinic`	No	Clinic engine version.
`counts`	No
`summary`	No	Human-readable finding count by severity.
`findings`	No
`stats_note`	No
`cleaned_context`	No	Redacted, deduplicated context safe to carry forward.
`suggested_next_steps`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 24, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "at": {
+      "description": "ISO timestamp of the diagnosis.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "cleaned_context": {
+      "description": "Redacted, deduplicated context safe to carry forward.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "clinic": {
+      "description": "Clinic engine version.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "counts": {
+      "properties": {
+        "by_severity": {
+          "properties": {
+            "high": {
+              "type": "integer"
+            },
+            "info": {
+              "type": "integer"
+            },
+            "warn": {
+              "type": "integer"
+            }
+          },
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "by_type": {
+          "description": "Finding counts keyed by condition type.",
+          "type": "object"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "findings": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "count": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "detail": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "evidence": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "kind": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "severity": {
+            "enum": [
+              "high",
+              "warn",
+              "info"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "description": "Condition type, e.g. prompt_injection_indicator, possible_contradiction, loop, context_bloat, secret_or_pii_exposure, duplicated_content.",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "input": {
+      "properties": {
+        "chars": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "est_tokens": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "stats_note": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "suggested_next_steps": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "summary": {
+      "description": "Human-readable finding count by severity.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it discharges most of it: it discloses the privacy model (anonymous, only aggregate counters retained, content never stored), the output shape (severity, evidence, detail, next steps), and scope disclaimers. It does not address error behavior, limits beyond the 20k char cap, or execution cost, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and privacy model are front-loaded, each sentence does work (capability, output, privacy, disclaimer, routing, alternative, example). The enumerated condition list is slightly dense but is load-bearing for the tool's scope, so the length is justified rather than padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter, output-schema-backed tool, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, the privacy contract, when to call it, which sibling to prefer, and a worked example. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the parameter accepts either free-form symptoms or a session transcript and by supplying a concrete example ("transcript=<a session where instructions conflicted>"), which shows the expected content granularity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (reads a transcript and returns a structured diagnosis of likely conditions) and enumerates the six condition categories it detects. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling qm_clinic_checkup, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ("when behavior feels off or after handling untrusted input") and names the alternative with the condition that selects it ("use qm_clinic_checkup instead for a routine 10-question self-report screening"). Nothing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Quiet Menders tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.