search_loincSearch LOINC codes (lab tests & clinical observations) by keyword (keyless). E.g. "hemoglobin a1c" -> LOINC number + long common name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (1-100, default 15). | |
| query | Yes | A lab test / observation name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesPrevious value: -[
- {
- "query": "hemoglobin a1c"
- },
- {
- "limit": 20,
- "query": "blood glucose"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "limit": 25,
+ "query": "hemoglobin A1c"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 20,
+ "query": "blood glucose"
+ }
+]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "hemoglobin a1c"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 20,
+ "query": "blood glucose"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: the search is keyless and the result output maps keywords to LOINC number plus long common name, giving the agent expected output shape.
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 with the key action and scope front-loaded, followed by a precise example. No filler or redundant restatement.
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 keyword search tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: scope, matching behavior, and return value shape. The limit parameter is documented in the schema. It could add a bit more about result limits or alternate output fields, but it is not a blocking gap.
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 100%, so query and limit already have adequate definitions. The description reinforces the query meaning with an example, but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema documents; this meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Search' and the specific resource 'LOINC codes (lab tests & clinical observations)', which distinguishes it from siblings like search_icd10 and search_medical_terms. The example 'hemoglobin a1c' -> 'LOINC number + long common name' concretely defines what the tool returns.
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 implies usage for lab test and clinical observation keyword searches, and the domain scope separates it from coding/term siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_icd10, search_medical_terms, or search_within, nor mention any exclusion conditions.
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.