Adolescent psychiatry library focused on the medication decisions parents wrestle with.
Scored across 6 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: fetching a single article, listing, searching, citing, getting crisis resources, and getting site info. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_, list_, search_, cite_). The style is uniform and predictable across the entire set.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a content library, covering core retrieval operations without unnecessary bloat. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary function.
The set covers the main read-only workflows: listing, searching, retrieving, and citing articles, plus crisis and site info. Minor gaps exist, such as no category browsing or related-article suggestions, but these are not critical for the domain.
Get a formatted citation for a Psychiatry for Teens article. Supports AMA, APA, and Chicago styles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Article slug. | |
| format | No | Citation style (default ama). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds supported style context (AMA, APA, Chicago). However, it does not disclose behavior on invalid slugs or the exact output format, which would go beyond the annotation.
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 compact sentences convey the core purpose and available styles without redundancy. The structure front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to scan.
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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and the citation styles supported. No additional behavioral detail is necessary for effective invocation.
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?
Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions, including the format enum and default value. The description only repeats supported styles without adding deeper semantic meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('formatted citation') with clear scope ('for a Psychiatry for Teens article'). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_article or search_articles by clearly focusing on citation generation.
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?
The description clearly implies the tool is for obtaining citations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or include any exclusions. The use case is evident from context, but no direct guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch a single article from Psychiatry for Teens by slug. Returns title, body content, author, clinical reviewer, citations, and metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Article slug. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds useful output details (title, body, author, reviewer, citations, metadata) but does not disclose error handling or rate limits. Given the read-only annotation, the additional context is moderate, not rich.
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?
The entire description is one efficient sentence: it front-loads the verb and resource, then lists expected return fields. Every clause adds value, and there is no repetition or extraneous detail.
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 simple single-parameter read operation with a read-only annotation, the description adequately covers the purpose and return content. It could mention how to find the slug (via list_articles or search_articles), but sibling tools imply that. Missing error semantics is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
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% because the only parameter 'slug' has a description ('Article slug'). The description reinforces 'by slug' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies a precise resource ('a single article from Psychiatry for Teens') with a clear lookup method ('by slug'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_articles and search_articles, which handle broader set operations.
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?
The phrase 'Fetch a single article... by slug' clearly implies use when a specific slug is known and full article content is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though sibling names provide implicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return the canonical 988 / 911 / Crisis Text Line payload. Surface this immediately whenever the user signals self-harm or imminent danger.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true. The description adds that the payload is 'canonical' and suggests it should be surfaced with urgency, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation. No contradictions with the read-only annotation.
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, no redundant words. The first sentence states the function and the second gives usage guidance. Perfectly sized and front-loaded.
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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward read-only action, the description fully covers its purpose, usage trigger, and distinguishes it from all siblings. It is complete.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description mentions no parameters, but none exist to document, so no additional value is needed.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('canonical 988 / 911 / Crisis Text Line payload'). It distinguishes itself from siblings that handle articles/microsite info, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'immediately whenever the user signals self-harm or imminent danger.' This is a clear trigger condition. Since no alternative tool exists for this purpose (siblings are about articles), no exclusions are necessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Identity and links for Psychiatry for Teens: tagline, audience, focus, publisher, sponsor relationship to Emora Health, and key URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds detail about the content returned but does not disclose behavioral traits like response format or any limitations. It is consistent with the annotation and adds some value.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the key information. Every element (resource name and specific content list) earns its place with no redundancy.
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 simple read-only info tool with no output schema, the description fully captures what the tool returns: identity details and links. It is complete and gives the agent enough to understand the tool's purpose.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema fully covers them (empty properties). No additional parameter info is needed.
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 clearly states the tool provides identity and links for a specific microsite, listing the exact contents (tagline, audience, focus, publisher, sponsor relationship, URLs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle articles, crisis resources, or searches.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool (when microsite info is needed) but does not explicitly state usage context or alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Paginated list of articles from Psychiatry for Teens. Returns title, slug, summary, and URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-indexed). | |
| limit | No | Max results per page (default 30, max 100). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation; the description adds that results are paginated and include specific fields (title, slug, summary, URL). This is useful behavioral context, though ordering and total-count behavior are not disclosed. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Single sentence that immediately states operation and scope. All words add value; no fluff. Front-loaded 'Paginated list' makes purpose clear.
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 low-complexity list tool with fully described optional parameters and a readOnly annotation, this description is adequate. It names the resource source and return fields, compensating for the lack of output schema. No critical gaps for invoking the tool.
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 covers both page and limit with clear descriptions (1-indexed page, max results per page, default 30, max 100), so coverage is high. The description doesn't add parameter semantics beyond the pagination concept, but the schema handles it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly identifies a paginated listing operation for articles from Psychiatry for Teens. The verb 'list' and resource 'articles' distinguish it from siblings like get_article and search_articles. Also describes returned fields, reinforcing purpose.
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?
Description implies use for browsing or fetching all articles in pages, but doesn't explicitly state when to choose it over search_articles or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The pagination hint provides limited context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search Psychiatry for Teens's editorial corpus by query. Returns title, slug, summary, and URL for matching articles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Alternate parameter name for `query`. | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 10, max 50). | |
| query | Yes | Free-text search query. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description does not need to re-state that. It adds useful return-field details and the 'matching articles' scope, but lacks additional behavioral context like pagination behavior, default limits, or rate limits.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by return fields. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or 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?
For a simple search tool with a good schema and read-only annotation, the description covers purpose, scope, and return fields. Missing guidance on sibling tool selection and default behaviors, but the schema covers parameter details, so the description is largely complete.
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% with descriptions for all three parameters (query, q, limit). The description adds minimal insight beyond confirming the primary query parameter; it does not meaningfully elaborate on the `limit` or `q` fields, so the baseline applies.
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 clearly states the tool searches the editorial corpus by query and specifies the return fields (title, slug, summary, URL). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_articles or get_article, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb 'search' and the context of 'matching articles,' but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_articles. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
cite_article1 field changedInput schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"get_article1 field changedInput schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"get_crisis_resources1 field changedInput schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"get_microsite_info1 field changedInput schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"list_articles1 field changedInput schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"search_articles1 field changedInput schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"cite_article2 fields changedInput schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / format / descriptionPrevious value: -"Citation format. Default: ama."New value: +"Citation style (default ama)."get_article2 fields changedInput schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionPrevious value: -"Article slug, e.g. \"what-an-evaluation-actually-looks-like\"."New value: +"Article slug."get_crisis_resources1 field changedInput schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"get_microsite_info1 field changedInput schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"list_articles9 fields changedInput schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Page size (default 30, max 100)."New value: +"Max results per page (default 30, max 100)."Input schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +100Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / limit / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"Input schema / properties / page / descriptionPrevious value: -"Page number (default 1)."New value: +"Page number (1-indexed)."Input schema / properties / page / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991Input schema / properties / page / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / page / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"search_articles6 fields changedInput schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +50Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / limit / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"Input schema / properties / qAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Alternate parameter name for `query`.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / query / descriptionPrevious value: -"Free-text query. Matches title and summary."New value: +"Free-text search query."cite_articleget_articleget_crisis_resourcesget_microsite_infolist_articlessearch_articlesClinician-reviewed library on child psychiatric evaluation and medication decision-making.
Plain-English child psychiatry library — short explainers and decision guides for parents.
Clinician-reviewed library on ADHD in teens — accommodations, executive function, evaluations.
Teen-first library on CBT, DBT, and finding the right therapist.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
