mcp

format_medigami_citation

DEPRECATED ALIAS of format_citation — kept for backward compatibility with v0.1.7 clients. New code should call format_citation directly.

WHEN TO USE: Reference lookups: individual code details, verifying a provider registry entry, checking a prior Medigami response's signature, or tracking an outcome.

WHEN NOT: For composite workflows use the higher-level tool that calls these internally.

Tool call template

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": "format_medigami_citation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`format`	No	short = one-line citation string; long = paragraph attribution; both = return both (default).
`envelope`	No	Full signed envelope returned by an attested Medigami tool (preferred).
`tracking_id`	No	tracking_id alone; the resulting URL will still render but the third party must paste the envelope into the verifier form.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses deprecation and read-oriented usage (reference lookups, verifying, tracking), but does not state whether there are side effects, what the return value looks like, or any auth/rate-limit constraints. The deprecation warning is useful, but behavior beyond that is thin.

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?

The description is short, front-loaded with the deprecation warning, and uses clear WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT labels. The WHEN TO USE bullet list is slightly broad and not tightly tied to citation formatting, but there is no redundant filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a deprecated alias with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers deprecation and routing but not the actual output format or what a formatted citation looks like. The mention of signature verification hints at the purpose, yet an agent invoking this tool still lacks a clear expectation of the return value.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains format, envelope, and tracking_id. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so it sits at the baseline.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly identifies the tool as a deprecated alias of format_citation, which distinguishes it from the sibling and signals its operation via the name. However, it never explicitly states that it formats a citation; the WHEN TO USE section frames it as a reference-lookup tool, muddying the core purpose.

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?

The description explicitly says new code should call format_citation directly, gives a WHEN TO USE list, and a WHEN NOT exclusion for composite workflows. This is unambiguous guidance for choosing between this deprecated alias and the canonical tool.

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

All mcp 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.

Resources

Need Help?