Manual-scan logbook (~14 days). For continuous graph use librelink_business_get_glucose_graph. Read-only CGM data — clinic/follower account; not for medical decisions without clinician review.
Bulk support: accepts patient_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| patient_id | Yes | ||
| 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, destructiveHint. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'Read-only CGM data' and including a medical disclaimer ('not for medical decisions without clinician review'). It also mentions 'clinic/follower account' hinting at authentication context, which surpasses annotation detail.
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 two short paragraphs: first covering purpose, alternative, and disclaimer; second covering bulk support. No redundant information. However, the disclaimer could be integrated more tightly. Overall, well-structured and efficient.
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 no output schema, the description falls short in explaining what the logbook contains (e.g., timestamp, glucose values). It states 'Read-only CGM data' but not the structure. Annotations cover safety, but for a data retrieval tool, return format expectations are missing, reducing completeness for an 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the bulk parameter 'patient_ids' for batched execution. However, it does not clarify the required 'patient_id' parameter beyond its obvious role, nor does it specify date range or format for the logbook entries. Minimal but adequate compensation.
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 retrieves a manual-scan glucose logbook with an approximate 14-day window. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'librelink_business_get_glucose_graph' which provides continuous graph data, making the purpose specific and non-redundant.
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 explicitly directs to use 'librelink_business_get_glucose_graph' for continuous data, and notes that this tool is for manual-scan logbook. It also mentions bulk support via 'patient_ids'. However, it does not exclude other sibling tools like 'get_current_glucose' for real-time data, though the context is implied.
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.