semble_list_patientsPatients of the practice (personal and health data). search matches name, email, phone or date of birth. Returns id, name, date of birth, contact details and status, plus pageInfo.hasMore for the next page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, from 1 (default 1). | |
| search | No | Free-text search (name, email, phone, date of birth). | |
| page_size | No | Rows per page, 1-100 (default 25). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value on top: it flags that records contain personal and health data, enumerates the returned fields, and discloses the `pageInfo.hasMore` pagination signal – behavior that is not visible anywhere else given there is no output schema.
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?
Three short sentences, zero filler: resource first, then filter behavior, then return shape and pagination. Every sentence carries information an agent needs to call or interpret the result correctly.
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 takes on the return-value burden and does it: fields returned, the data sensitivity, and how to detect more pages. Combined with the fully documented input schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke it and interpret the response.
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 all three parameters (page, search, page_size) are already documented with defaults in the schema. The description restates the searchable fields rather than adding new semantics, so it earns the baseline 3 for a fully covered 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 names the resource (patients of the practice) and the operation (list, optionally filtered by `search`), and the search fields are spelled out. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the single-record sibling `semble_get_patient` or from `semble_list_contacts`.
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?
Usage is implied by the sentence about what `search` matches, which tells an agent when the filter is appropriate. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to the sibling tools that would be preferred for single-patient lookup or other entity lists.
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.