MCP Cliniko Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create a new appointment' implies a write operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, side effects (e.g., calendar updates), error handling, or response format. It lacks details on what happens if constraints are violated (e.g., overlapping appointments), making it insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with zero waste—'Create a new appointment' is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address return values, error conditions, or system-specific behaviors. For a tool that creates appointments in a medical context, more context on constraints or outcomes is needed, making it inadequate despite the concise structure.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly (e.g., 'starts_at' as ISO 8601, 'patient_id' as optional). The description adds no meaning beyond this, not explaining relationships between parameters or business rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 'Create a new appointment' states the basic action and resource, which is clear but minimal. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_appointment' or 'cancel_appointment' by specifying 'new', but lacks detail on what constitutes an appointment in this context. It's not tautological but remains vague about scope or system specifics.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., patient must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'update_appointment' or 'get_available_times'. Usage is implied only by the tool name, with no explicit context or alternatives stated.

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