MCP Cliniko Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'clean up' (implying deletion) and a 'dry-run option', but fails to specify critical details such as whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens to related data. For a destructive tool with 7 parameters, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('clean up all test data') and adds key features ('granular control and dry-run option') without any wasted words. Every element earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, and output format, and doesn't fully explain parameter semantics or usage context. For a comprehensive cleanup tool, this leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.

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 low at 14%, with only the 'dry_run' parameter having a description. The tool description mentions 'granular control' and 'dry-run option', which loosely map to some parameters, but it doesn't explain the meaning of parameters like 'delete_patients', 'test_domain', or the interaction between 'delete_all_test_data' and other boolean flags. This doesn't adequately compensate for the low schema coverage.

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's purpose with the verb 'clean up' and resource 'all test data', and it adds 'granular control' and 'dry-run option' which provide useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'cleanup_test_data', which appears to be a similar tool, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cleanup_test_data' or 'delete_patient'/'delete_appointment'. It mentions 'granular control' and 'dry-run option' but doesn't explain when these features are beneficial or when to prefer this over other deletion tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.