The same list of medicines for another place — called by the FineRx card itself.
``slugs`` with their packages in parallel lists (an empty string or 0 = not
set). ``where`` is the place as typed in the card: used for this one
request, never stored. Not for the model.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | No | ||
| forms | No | ||
| slugs | Yes | ||
| where | No | ||
| locale | No | ||
| strengths | No | ||
| quantities | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: 'where' is 'used for this one request, never stored' (no persistence), and 'an empty string or 0 = not set' discloses how unset values are represented in the parallel lists.
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?
It is short and front-loads the main scope statement, but the backtick-heavy phrasing and the trailing 'Not for the model' aside make it read awkwardly rather than cleanly structured. It is adequate but not especially well-organized.
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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves most parameters unexplained and gives no sense of what is returned. The 'never stored' and list-convention notes are helpful but insufficient for the tool's complexity.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It does explain the parallel-list convention across the array parameters and the empty-string/0 sentinel, which is useful, but 'zip', 'forms', 'strengths', and 'locale' are never addressed, leaving several parameters undocumented in both schema and description.
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 conveys the resource (a list of medicines for a place) but only vaguely implies the action, and the phrasing 'called by the FineRx card itself' is the closest thing to a clear scope statement. The annotation title 'Refresh the medicines list card' clarifies intent more than the description itself, so purpose is discernible but not cleanly stated as verb+resource.
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?
'Not for the model' and 'called by the FineRx card itself' are genuine when-not-to-use signals that route the agent away from this tool. However, no alternatives are named and no positive use condition is described, leaving the guidance implied rather than explicit.
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.