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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds 'Requires authentication' which is a useful prerequisite. It also lists the data fields to expect, providing behavioral context beyond the annotation without contradicting it.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then lists the care plan components. Each list item adds value, and there is no redundant information, making it highly concise and scannable.
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, the presence of an output schema, clear annotations, and full parameter coverage, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what data will be returned, the authentication requirement, and the tool's read-only nature, so no critical context is missing.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both patient_id and bearer_token. The description does not add additional meaning about parameter formats or constraints beyond what the schema provides; it only restates 'patient' and 'authentication' implicitly.
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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the patient's current care plan.' It enumerates the included elements, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like portal_refill or portal_log_weight, making the intent unmistakable.
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 implies usage when a care plan is needed, and the sibling list shows other tools for different actions, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it, but it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes with clear boundaries, such as auth_* for authentication, checkout_* for payment, and portal_* for patient portal actions. However, there is some overlap between checkout_status and auth_check_payment (both involve polling for payment status) and between portal_support and portal_message (both for communication), which could cause minor confusion.
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, with clear prefixes grouping related tools (e.g., auth_, checkout_, consent_, intake_, medications_, order_, portal_, provider_). This predictable structure makes it easy to understand the tool set's organization and purpose.
With 34 tools, the count is borderline high for a telehealth server, as it may feel heavy and complex for agents to navigate. While the tools cover a comprehensive workflow from authentication to patient portal, some consolidation (e.g., merging similar polling tools) could improve usability without losing functionality.
The tool set provides complete coverage for the telehealth domain, including authentication, eligibility checks, medication browsing, intake, consent, checkout, order management, and patient portal features. There are no obvious gaps; agents can handle the entire patient journey from start to ongoing care without dead ends.