List patients whose LibreLink Up readings are accessible to this install (alias of librelink_list_accounts; same data). Read-only CGM data — not for medical decisions without clinician review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds specific context: 'Read-only CGM data — not for medical decisions without clinician review', which is valuable beyond the annotations and clarifies the data's sensitivity.
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, front-loaded with purpose and alias. Efficient but could be slightly more concise by removing redundant phrasing ('same data' is implied). No fluff.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers core purpose, alias, and read-only caveat. However, the lack of parameter description leaves it incomplete; a complete description would clarify the account field.
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 does not explain the 'account' parameter (its purpose, format, or behavior). The description adds no information about parameters, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use the input.
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 the tool lists accessible patients ('List patients whose LibreLink Up readings are accessible'), uses a specific verb ('List'), and explicitly identifies itself as an alias of librelink_list_accounts, distinguishing it 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?
The description notes the tool is read-only and not for medical decisions, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to choose this over librelink_list_accounts). The alias mention helps, but no when/when-not criteria.
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 are clearly distinct by function, but librelink_list_accounts and librelink_list_connections are exact aliases, causing confusion. Some glucose tools have overlapping outputs (e.g., librelink_get_current_glucose vs librelink_get_latest_reading), though descriptions help differentiate them.
CGM data tools consistently use the librelink_ prefix, but authentication, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, and toolkit_info lack the prefix, mixing conventions. This inconsistency makes the tool set feel disjointed.
With 16 tools, the set is slightly larger than needed, but it covers the main CGM functionalities plus platform utilities. The number is still reasonable and manageable, with each tool serving a specific purpose.
The CGM data tools provide comprehensive read-only access (current, graph, stats, logbook, etc.), but there are no write operations (e.g., setting targets) or historical data beyond ~12-14 days. The inclusion of marketplace and configuration tools feels out of scope but does not leave critical gaps for the stated domain.