drchrono_list_lab_ordersList lab orders, filterable by doctor, patient, or last-modified time. Returns a page plus next/previous. DrChrono API: GET /lab_orders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number to fetch (1-based). Default 1. | |
| since | No | Orders modified at/after this ISO timestamp. | |
| doctor | No | Filter by doctor id. | |
| patient | No | Filter by patient id. | |
| page_size | No | Results per page (max 250). Default 100. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the paginated return shape (`next`/`previous`) and the upstream API mapping, which tells the agent the result is paginated. It still omits auth/permission requirements, so not a 5.
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 compact sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler; every clause carries information.
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 no output schema, the description usefully supplies the return structure (page plus next/previous) for a 5-param read tool. It lacks guidance on rate limits or authentication, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's filter list maps clearly onto the schema params and glosses `since` as 'last-modified time', but adds little syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already documents.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('List lab orders') and enumerates the filter dimensions, so an agent knows exactly what it does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling drchrono_list_lab_results, so it falls short of a 5.
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 the tool is for filtered listing but gives no when-to-use guidance and never mentions when to prefer a sibling such as drchrono_list_lab_results. The agent is left to infer routing.
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.