portal_refillRequest a medication refill for the patient's current prescription. Creates a refill order that will be reviewed by a provider within 24-48 hours. 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 description adds context beyond annotations: it reveals the 24-48 hour review delay and the need for authentication, complementing the destructiveHint annotation by explaining the workflow. It avoids contradicting the annotations, though it doesn't detail what destructive effects (if any) occur. This is sufficient given annotation coverage.
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 two sentences long, each with a clear purpose: the first states the action, the second explains the workflow and authentication. No unnecessary words.
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?
For a simple tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential action and outcome. It lacks explicit preconditions (e.g., must have a current prescription) and doesn't clarify the output shape, but the schema fills that gap. Slightly more context could be added, but it's largely 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% for both parameters, and the descriptions are minimal but present. The tool description itself adds no additional detail about parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 clearly states the specific action ('Request a medication refill') and the resource ('the patient's current prescription'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like medications_list or order_create by focusing on the refill workflow, making it unique.
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 clear context: it creates a refill order reviewed within 24-48 hours, indicating this is for refills of existing prescriptions. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., when to use order_create instead), so it falls short of a 5.
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.