Read anamnesis (health history questionnaire) records in Dietbox. Actions: list (paginated), get (by ID), get_latest (most recent for patient).
[Flattened action: list]
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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds information about bulk support and pagination (skip/take) but also introduces confusing 'actions' that imply non-list operations. No contradictions. Additional context is moderate.
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?
Description is short but includes redundant listing of get/get_latest actions that are not relevant to this tool. The 'Flattened action: list' adds confusion. Could be more concise and clear.
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 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 8 parameters, the description lacks essential details like return format, pagination behavior, and parameter semantics. Incomplete for a tool with this complexity.
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%, so description must compensate. It only mentions patient_ids and anamnesis_ids for batched execution, leaving skip, take, search, account, patient_id, anamnesis_id unexplained. Insufficient explanation for 8 parameters.
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 it reads anamnesis records, but also lists get and get_latest as actions, which are separate sibling tools. This creates ambiguity about whether this tool handles only listing or also retrieval. The 'Flattened action: list' note attempts to clarify but is confusing. Purpose is somewhat clear but not distinct from siblings.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus dietbox_anamnese_get or dietbox_anamnese_get_latest. The description mentions bulk support and pagination but does not advise on selection criteria. Agent gets no help choosing 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.