portal_care_planGet the patient's current care plan including: current medication, current dosage, titration schedule, next dose adjustment date, upcoming refill date, provider notes, and weight progress summary. Requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| patient_id | Yes | Patient ID | |
| bearer_token | No | Authentication token for the patient session |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, and the description aligns by using 'Get' and listing informational content. The description adds the behavioral requirement of authentication and details what data is included, which is useful context beyond the annotation.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the included data elements without redundant wording. It efficiently conveys the essential information.
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?
The description is comprehensive for a read-only retrieval tool: it specifies the scope ('current'), lists the contents, and mentions authentication. An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed in the description.
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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both patient_id and bearer_token, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 begins with 'Get the patient's current care plan' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It enumerates specific data elements (medication, dosage, titration schedule, etc.), distinguishing it from other portal tools that handle unrelated actions.
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 establishes a clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve the patient's current care plan. It notes the authentication requirement, which is a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it.
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.