Veterical Vet Clinic

Add an animal

create_patient

DestructiveIdempotent

Use this when someone asks to add a new animal to their vet clinic, such as a new puppy of an existing owner. Returns the animal's id, name and clinic; it is saved with its species, breed and owner. Not for adding a pet owner.

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>",
      "species": "<species>",
      "clientId": "<clientId>",
      "requestId": "<requestId>"
    },
    "name": "create_patient"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	The animal's name.
`breed`	No	The breed, when the user gives one.
`species`	Yes	The species: dog, cat, rodent, bird, reptile, horse, livestock or other.
`clientId`	Yes	Id of the animal's owner at this clinic, from find_client or create_client.
`clinicId`	No	Id of the clinic, from list_clinics. Leave it out when the user has one clinic.
`requestId`	Yes	A unique id you choose for this animal, such as a UUID. Calling again with the same requestId returns the first animal rather than adding a second one.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`patient`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful persistence context ("saved with its species, breed and owner"), but it does not explain the surprising destructiveHint=true flag or the idempotent retry behavior, which only appears in the requestId schema field.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger followed by the caveat. The return-value sentence partially duplicates the existing output schema, so it is slightly less lean than it could be, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Six parameters with full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations mean the description need only set scope and routing, which it does. Only the unaddressed destructive/idempotent hints for a create operation leave a small gap.

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%, including enum values for species and the requestId idempotency note, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only restates that species, breed and owner are stored, adding no new syntax or format guidance. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ("add a new animal to their vet clinic") with a concrete example ("a new puppy of an existing owner") and explicitly disclaims the adjacent create-client case. An agent can distinguish it from create_client and find_patient without opening schemas.

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 a clear trigger condition ("when someone asks to add a new animal") and an explicit exclusion ("Not for adding a pet owner"), which routes the agent toward create_client. It stops short of naming that sibling tool or spelling out the prerequisite that the owner must already exist with a clientId.

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?