physician-review

Book a physician session

anomaly_book_session

Book a Physician Health Review with Anomaly Health (30 min $249, 60 min $349). Booking holds the slot; the result includes a payment link, and the session is confirmed once paid. Tell the user the price before booking. Requires a start time from anomaly_check_availability. Available in all US states. Patients must be 18+. Confirm slot, name, email, state and date of birth with the user, and that they agree to Anomaly's telehealth consent and privacy policy (anomaly.health/consent, anomaly.health/privacy). Before booking, offer once to include health_context (optional) so the physician can prepare; draft it from the conversation, show the user the full object, and send it only after an explicit yes. The physician and Anomaly will see it. Never send transcripts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`start`	Yes	Slot start in UTC, ISO 8601, exactly as returned by anomaly_check_availability
`track`	No	Care track that best fits: results_review, longevity, biological_age, womens_hormonal, cardiometabolic, weight_loss, preventive_screening, functional_medicine, microbiome_gut, performance_optimization, general_health, peptides
`consent`	Yes	The user explicitly agreed to Anomaly Health's telehealth consent and privacy policy. Must be true.
`patient_dob`	Yes	Date of birth, YYYY-MM-DD. Must be 18 or older.
`patient_name`	Yes	Patient's full name
`patient_email`	Yes	Patient's email; the confirmation and video link go here
`patient_phone`	No	Optional, for SMS reminders, E.164 format
`patient_state`	Yes	Two-letter US state the patient will physically be in during the session (telehealth licensing)
`health_context`	No	OPTIONAL context for the physician's pre-review. Show it to the user in full and send only after they explicitly agree. Example: {"main_concern":"ApoB and LDL came back high on a Function Health panel; wants to know whether to start medication","goals":["Lower cardiovascular risk","Keep training for a half marathon"],"conditions":["Prediabetes (A1c 5.8, 2025)"],"medications":["None"],"supplements":["Vitamin D 2000 IU","Creatine 5 g"],"recent_results":[{"type":"advanced_bloodwork","source":"Function Health","date":"2026-08","key_findings":"ApoB 118, LDL 152, hs-CRP 2.4, A1c 5.7, ferritin 40"},{"type":"dexa","source":"BodySpec","date":"2026-06","key_findings":"Body fat 24%, visceral fat 1.1 lb, ALMI 8.1"}],"wearables":"Oura: avg sleep 6h40, HRV 38 ms trending down over 3 months","family_history":["Father: heart attack at 58"],"questions_for_physician":["Statin vs lifestyle first?","Is the HRV drop related?"]}
`duration_minutes`	No	Session length in minutes: 30 min $249, 60 min $349. Defaults to 60.
`patient_timezone`	Yes	Patient's IANA timezone, e.g. 'America/New_York'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The annotations only provide generic hints (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), so the description carries the behavioral burden. It fully discloses that booking holds the slot, the session is confirmed only after payment, the result includes a payment link, and it adds important privacy rules: show health_context before sending and never send transcripts.

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded with the core action and pricing, and every sentence carries operational value. Some facts like prices and 18+ eligibility are repeated from the schema, but the repetition is low-cost and keeps the description self-contained.

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 covers prerequisites, eligibility, confirmation requirements, consent, pricing, health_context handling, and the post-booking payment flow, which is strong for a complex tool with no output schema. Minor gaps include not telling the agent to confirm the required patient_timezone with the user, and not describing error behavior if the chosen slot is no longer available.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds workflow-level meaning beyond the schema: the start must come from anomaly_check_availability, health_context requires explicit user approval before sending, and the price-to-duration mapping is reinforced. It does not add per-parameter detail for track or patient_phone, but the schema already handles those clearly.

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 states a specific verb, 'Book', and a clearly defined resource, 'Physician Health Review with Anomaly Health', along with pricing and eligibility. It also differentiates itself from the availability-checking sibling by explicitly requiring a start time from anomaly_check_availability.

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 establishes when to use the tool: after obtaining a start time from anomaly_check_availability, and only for eligible patients (18+, in US states). It does not explicitly state exclusions or when to prefer anomaly_about_care or anomaly_health_memory, but the booking workflow is clearly contextualized.

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

All physician-review 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?