Read patients in Dietbox. Actions: list (paginated, search by name), get (full detail).
[Flattened action: get]
Bulk support: accepts patient_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| take | No | ||
| order | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| is_active | No | ||
| patient_id | No | ||
| patient_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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds bulk support and pagination context, but lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling.
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 three sentences with no redundant words. Front-loaded with core purpose, then actions, then bulk support. Efficient 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?
With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify the output format, how list vs get differ, or how to use pagination parameters. Less than minimal viable for the tool's 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?
Only two parameters are partially explained: 'search' (by name) and 'patient_ids' (bulk). The other six parameters (skip, take, order, account, is_active, patient_id) are not described, despite zero schema coverage.
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?
Clearly states 'Read patients in Dietbox' and mentions two actions (list, get) and bulk support. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool dietbox_patient_list, which likely serves a similar listing purpose.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dietbox_patient_list or dietbox_patient_get for specific tasks. Does not state prerequisites or exclusions.
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.