auth_resend_otpResend the verification code to the patient's email. Use this if the original code expired (5-minute window) or was not received.
Requires the session_id from auth_start — no email needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | Session ID from auth_start |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds some context about the 5-minute expiration window and the need for session_id. However, it doesn't disclose any side effects (e.g., invalidating the previous code) or rate limits. It does not contradict annotations, so a mid-range score is appropriate.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two short sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage conditions and prerequisite. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, output schema present), the description covers purpose, usage conditions, and the required input. It doesn't explain error scenarios or what happens to the previous code, but for a straightforward resend operation with an output schema, it is sufficiently complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of session_id as 'Session ID from auth_start.' The description reinforces this by stating 'Requires the session_id from auth_start — no email needed,' but it adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is suitable.
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 the action: 'Resend the verification code to the patient's email.' It includes a specific verb ('resend') and resource ('verification code'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the resend use case and prerequisite session_id from auth_start.
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?
The description gives explicit conditions for use: 'Use this if the original code expired (5-minute window) or was not received.' It also clarifies that only session_id is needed, not an email, which helps the agent understand when to invoke this tool in the auth flow. It lacks explicit alternatives, but the context is clear.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action within the telehealth workflow: auth, consent, eligibility, intake, medications, checkout, order, portal, and provider communication. Even the multiple medication tools (list, details, availability, pricing) have clearly separated purposes, and there is no overlap among the 34 tools.
All tool names follow a consistent `domain_verb` or `domain_noun` snake_case pattern, prefixed by their domain (auth_, checkout_, consent_, intake_, medications_, order_, portal_, provider_). There are no mixed conventions or vague verbs, making the API predictable and easy to navigate.
With 34 tools, the server exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' and feels fragmented. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., medication pricing and availability could fold into details, and consent list/status could be combined). While the scope is broad, the count is excessive for a well-scoped MCP server.
The tool surface covers the full patient lifecycle from authentication and consent through eligibility, intake, checkout, order management, and post-order portal features. Minor gaps include lack of order cancellation or order listing, and no explicit intake update mechanism, but these are workable and do not block core workflows.