meddroid_infoWhat MedDroid is: the free AI Health OS for families, plans and prices, MedDroid Providers and Sync OS for clinics, downloads and contact.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "meddroid_info"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | 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 nothing about what is returned (prose vs. structured data) and, notably, does not say what happens when the optional topic is omitted, which is the main behavioral unknown left for a zero-required-parameter tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. The content is a compressed noun list with a marketing flavor, but it is efficient and readable.
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 one-enum-parameter info tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the subject matter adequately. What it lacks is the default-topic behavior and any hint of the answer shape, which an agent needs to invoke it reliably without a required parameter.
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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter; it partly does by naming the subject areas (plans and prices, Providers, Sync OS, downloads, contact) that correspond to the enum values. It does not explain what each topic yields, nor that topic is optional and what the default is, so the mapping stays impressionistic.
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 identifies the resource (what MedDroid is, its product areas: plans/prices, Providers, Sync OS, downloads, contact), which maps onto the six topic values and clearly separates this from the health-oriented siblings. The verb is implicit ('What MedDroid is') rather than an explicit 'returns information about', but an agent can still determine the tool's job.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus a sibling, no mention that it should be used for product/pricing/contact questions about MedDroid itself rather than health questions, and no exclusions. Use is only inferable from the enumerated content areas.
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.