MCP Cliniko Server

cleanup_test_data

Delete test patients from Cliniko by removing records with common test email domains like @gmail.com and @outlook.com to maintain clean practice data.

Instructions

Delete all test patients (patients with emails ending in @gmail.com, @outlook.com, etc)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "cleanup_test_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Apr 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like irreversibility, permissions, or logging. It only states the deletion criteria, missing important safety context for a destructive operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence (12 words) that is front-loaded and efficient. Every word is necessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having no parameters or output schema, the description lacks completeness for a destructive tool. It does not explain what 'test patients' fully entails, whether the operation is reversible, or what the outcome is. More context would be helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. Per scoring rules, zero parameters baseline is 4. The description adds no param info, which is acceptable because none exist.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (delete), resource (test patients), and selection criteria (emails ending in @gmail.com, @outlook.com, etc). It distinguishes from the sibling 'cleanup_comprehensive_test_data' by being more specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for cleaning up test patients but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'cleanup_comprehensive_test_data' or provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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