fetchRetrieve a full doctor profile by id (the slug returned from search). Returns {id, title, text, url, metadata}. (OpenAI connector-compatible.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Doctor slug returned by the search tool. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds no behavioral traits beyond output format and compatibility. Minimal additional value.
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 sentences, no redundancy. Efficiently communicates purpose, input, output, and compatibility.
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 fetch tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers input source, return fields, and compatibility. Complete and self-contained.
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% and the parameter is simple. Description reiterates the schema's guidance but adds no new meaning beyond reinforcement.
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 uses specific verb 'retrieve' and resource 'full doctor profile by id', clarifying the id is a slug from search. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the return format and connector compatibility.
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?
Clearly states input must come from 'search' tool, implying usage after search. However, no explicit when-not or alternatives among siblings.
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, but fetch and get_doctor both retrieve doctor profiles with different detail levels, and search and search_doctors overlap in search functionality. Descriptions help differentiate but some ambiguity remains.
Tool names mostly use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some start with 'get_', 'list_', 'search_', while 'fetch' stands out without a prefix. Mix of verbs and styles reduces predictability.
9 tools is well-scoped for a doctor directory server, covering search in multiple modes, profile retrieval, reviews, costs, and location/procedure listing. Each tool earns its place.
Core information retrieval functions are present: multiple search methods, detailed profiles, reviews, cost data, and location/procedure catalogs. Minor gaps like direct ID-based retrieval overlapping with slug-based are acceptable.