get_treatment
Full details and FAQs for one treatment. Use a slug from list_treatments() (e.g. 'dentalimplants').
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Full details and FAQs for one treatment. Use a slug from list_treatments() (e.g. 'dentalimplants').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionRemoved value: -"Treatment slug"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only status or side effects. However, the purpose ('get') implies a safe retrieval operation, so it is minimally adequate.
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 front-load the main purpose and usage instruction. No wasted words; every sentence is essential.
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?
With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It adequately covers what the tool does and how to use it, though it could mention that it is a read-only operation.
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 only parameter 'slug' has 0% schema description coverage, but the description explains what a slug is and gives an example ('dentalimplants'), adding value beyond the schema structure.
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 it provides 'Full details and FAQs for one treatment', specifying the verb ('get') and resource ('treatment details'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_treatments' (listing) and 'faqs' (general FAQs) by focusing on a single treatment and including treatment-specific FAQs.
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 instructs to 'Use a slug from list_treatments()', providing a clear prerequisite and source for the slug parameter. This helps avoid misuse and guides the agent to the correct input.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.