Veterical Vet Clinic

Add a pet owner

create_client

DestructiveIdempotent

Use this when someone asks to add a new pet owner to their vet clinic. Returns the owner's id, name, clinic and language; the phone and email given are saved but never returned. Not for adding an animal.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "requestId": "<requestId>"
    },
    "name": "create_client"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	The owner's full name.
`email`	No	Email address.
`phone`	No	Mobile number, with the country code when known.
`clinicId`	No	Id of the clinic, from list_clinics. Leave it out when the user has one clinic.
`language`	No	Language for their messages, as a code such as en, it or pt-BR. Defaults to the clinic language.
`requestId`	Yes	A unique id you choose for this owner, such as a UUID. Calling again with the same requestId returns the first owner rather than adding a second one.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`client`	Yes
`status`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing a non-obvious data-fidelity trait: phone and email are persisted but never returned, so the agent shouldn't expect them back. The idempotency behavior is carried by the schema's requestId description rather than the description, and the destructiveHint=true annotation is neither explained nor contradicted.

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 short sentences with the trigger front-loaded, followed by return shape and then the exclusion. Nothing is padded or repeated unnecessarily.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Covers trigger, scope, and the one surprising behavioral detail for a six-parameter create tool, while an output schema already defines the return payload. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and set caller expectations about missing phone/email.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real value by clarifying the asymmetry between accepted inputs (phone, email) and returned fields. It doesn't touch clinicId defaults or requestId retry semantics, but those are already fully documented in 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?

States a specific action and resource ('add a new pet owner to their vet clinic'), which clearly separates it from update_client, find_client and update_patient in the sibling list. The closing line 'Not for adding an animal' seals the distinction from create_patient.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when someone asks to add a new pet owner') plus an exclusion ('Not for adding an animal'), which routes the agent toward create_patient. It doesn't name update_client as the alternative when the owner already exists, leaving that disambiguation to inference.

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

All Veterical Vet Clinic 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?