Read anamnesis (health history questionnaire) records in Dietbox. Actions: list (paginated), get (by ID), get_latest (most recent for patient).
[Flattened action: get]
Bulk support: accepts patient_ids, anamnesis_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| take | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| patient_id | No | ||
| patient_ids | No | ||
| anamnesis_id | No | ||
| anamnesis_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds moderate value by mentioning bulk support and pagination, but does not disclose details like rate limits or response format.
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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the purpose. The inclusion of '[Flattened action: get]' is slightly distracting but does not severely impact clarity.
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?
With 8 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no parameter enums, the description lacks essential details about pagination, bulk behavior, and return format, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
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 0%, and the description only mentions bulk parameters generically without explaining each parameter's purpose, syntax, or constraints. This fails to compensate for the lack of 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 clearly states it reads anamnesis records and lists actions (list, get, get_latest), but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like dietbox_anamnese_list and dietbox_anamnese_get_latest, causing potential confusion.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., dietbox_anamnese_list, dietbox_anamnese_get_latest). The presence of overlapping sibling tools without explanation merits a low score.
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.