tannlege_akuttFind Norwegian dental clinics that offer emergency-duty (akuttvakt) — i.e. treatment outside normal working hours. Optionally filter by county (fylke). Also returns advice about the municipal dental emergency service (kommunal tannlegevakt). Example: 'finn akutt tannlege i Oslo'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fylke | No | Limit to clinics in this county. Examples: 'Oslo', 'Vestland' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about returning advice on municipal dental emergency service, complementing the annotations without contradiction.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. It is concise and includes an example, though the second sentence about advice is slightly less impact.
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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's function and additional output (advice). It could benefit from mentioning the return format (e.g., list of clinics), but is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single optional parameter 'fylke', with examples. The description only repeats the filtering option, adding no new semantic information beyond the schema.
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 finds emergency-duty dental clinics in Norway, with optional county filtering. It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('emergency-duty dental clinics'), and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on info, chains, search, or stats.
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 explains when to use the tool (for emergency-duty clinics outside normal hours) and gives an example query. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
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.