TestWell Lab Tests

Recommend tests for goals or symptoms

recommend_tests

Read-onlyIdempotent

Suggest TestWell panels and tests for stated health goals (e.g. 'annual checkup', 'heart health', 'TRT monitoring') and/or symptoms (e.g. 'fatigue', 'hair loss'). Prefers a curated pre-built panel when one fits; otherwise assembles individual tests within a budget. Educational matching, not a diagnosis.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`goals`	No	Health goals, e.g. ['energy', 'thyroid']
`budget`	No	Budget band: low ≈ $80, medium ≈ $200, high ≈ $400
`symptoms`	No	Symptoms, e.g. ['always cold', 'weight gain']

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`next`	No	Suggested next tool call
`goals`	No
`byGoal`	No	Recommended panel and alternatives for the stated goals
`labFee`	No	USD
`symptoms`	No
`bySymptom`	No	Panels, individual tests and explanations for the stated symptoms
`disclaimer`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 6, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "byGoal": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "additionalProperties": {},
+          "properties": {},
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "description": "Recommended panel and alternatives for the stated goals"
+    },
+    "bySymptom": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "additionalProperties": {},
+          "properties": {},
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "description": "Panels, individual tests and explanations for the stated symptoms"
+    },
+    "disclaimer": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "goals": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "labFee": {
+      "description": "USD",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "next": {
+      "description": "Suggested next tool call",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "symptoms": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it prefers curated pre-built panels when one fits and otherwise assembles individual tests within a budget, plus the educational-non-diagnostic caveat.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences with no filler: the first states purpose, the second explains selection behavior, and the third provides an essential limitation. Every sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description is complete for a read-only recommendation tool: it covers inputs, selection strategy, and the non-diagnostic boundary, while annotations cover safety and the output schema covers return structure. It does not specify behavior when neither goals nor symptoms are provided, but that is a minor gap given the optional parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents goals, symptoms, and budget with examples and budget approximations. The description reinforces the panel-vs-individual behavior and budget relevance, but it does not add substantial parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Suggest'), resource ('TestWell panels and tests'), and input context ('health goals... and/or symptoms'), with concrete examples. It also differentiates from siblings like search_tests or list_panels by emphasizing recommendation behavior rather than catalog lookup.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description defines when to use the tool: when users state goals or symptoms and need panel/test suggestions. It also adds an exclusion ('Educational matching, not a diagnosis') that helps an agent decide not to use it for diagnostic claims. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the purpose and scope are clear enough.

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

All TestWell Lab Tests 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?