Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

mediora-mcp

by io.github.SLAtech-IL
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Explain a blood-test marker

mediora__explain_marker
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the full explainer for a single blood-test marker by slug. Includes: what it measures, what high/low values mean, when the value is clinically actionable, the conditions typically associated with it, and - where habits genuinely move the number - what can be done about a high or low result. Those action fields are empty when the value follows an underlying cause rather than lifestyle, which is itself the answer. When a person has checked the reference range against an official source, rangeSource names it (title, url, checkedOn).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "mediora__explain_marker"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNoLanguage code. Defaults to 'en'.
slugYesMediora canonical slug (e.g. 'hba1c', 'ferritin'). Use mediora__list_markers / mediora__list_conditions to discover slugs.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description wisely spends its words on output semantics: action fields are intentionally empty when the value follows an underlying cause ('which is itself the answer'), and rangeSource carries title/url/checkedOn. That prevents an agent from misreading empty fields as a failure. It stops short of indicating size/length or completeness guarantees of the explainer.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the follow-on detail about action fields and rangeSource is directly useful. The two sentences are dense with em-dash digressions, but no sentence is pure filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does describe the conceptual sections returned plus the meaning of empty action fields and the rangeSource object. It omits actual field names/shape the agent might need to render results, and does not explain lang behavior, but the essential behavior is covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the discovery path for slugs and the lang default. The description only restates 'by slug' and never mentions the lang parameter or whether the explainer text is localized, so it adds minimal value over the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('Return the full explainer for a single blood-test marker by slug') and enumerates the payload (what it measures, high/low meaning, actionability, conditions, actions). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the close sibling 'lookup_marker' or from explain_condition/explain_panel, leaving the agent to infer the split between 'explain' and 'lookup'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by the word 'explainer'; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over lookup_marker or list_markers. The only routing hint (use list_markers to discover slugs) lives in the schema, not the description, and no when-not conditions are given.

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

All mediora-mcp toolsInspect
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