Get location, contact, listed services, and sourced doctor backgrounds for one practice. Does not establish clinical suitability or current licensure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| practice_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| details | Yes | ||
| practice_id | Yes | ||
| practice_name | Yes | ||
| source_status | Yes | ||
| sources_checked | Yes | ||
| information_may_be_outdated | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "details": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "information_may_be_outdated": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "practice_id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "practice_name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "source_status": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "sources_checked": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "sources_checked",
+ "information_may_be_outdated",
+ "source_status",
+ "practice_id",
+ "practice_name",
+ "details"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world lookup. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the categories of information returned and explicitly warning that it does not establish clinical suitability or current licensure.
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?
Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The primary scope is front-loaded and the limitation follows naturally.
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 low complexity, rich annotations, and existing output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states what information is returned and flags an important limitation. It could be stronger only by clarifying the practice_id lookup context and when to use this versus find_practices.
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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain the practice_id parameter, its expected format, or the single enum value. "For one practice" only loosely gestures at the parameter and does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieve location, contact, listed services, and sourced doctor backgrounds for one practice. The phrase "for one practice" distinguishes it from the sibling find_practices discovery tool, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 this is for looking up a single known practice but does not say when to use it versus alternatives such as find_practices. It also provides no prerequisites or exclusions beyond the clinical/licensure disclaimer.
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.