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 effectively communicates that this is a demo tool (not for production use), mentions the read-only limitation for invoices via API, and implies data generation and cleanup behaviors. However, it doesn't explicitly mention rate limits or potential side effects of 'clear_existing' beyond what the parameter description covers.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with essential information. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides the critical limitation. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or 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?

For a demo tool with comprehensive parameter documentation (100% schema coverage) but no output schema, the description provides excellent context about the tool's purpose, limitations, and appropriate usage. The only minor gap is the lack of information about what the tool returns (though as a demo tool, this is less critical). The description compensates well for the absence of annotations.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but it provides context about the overall workflow that helps understand how parameters fit together. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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: generating test patients and appointments, then demonstrating invoice creation. It specifies the exact sequence of actions (generate test data first, then show invoice creation) and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on a demo workflow rather than individual operations like create_patient or get_invoice.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for demonstration purposes to show how invoices are created. It also gives a critical 'when-not' warning: 'Cliniko API is READ-ONLY for invoices - they must be created via the web interface,' which clearly distinguishes it from actual invoice creation tools and explains the demo nature.

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