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. It discloses the read-only nature and manual creation requirement, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it doesn't cover aspects like error handling, rate limits, or response format details, leaving gaps that lower the score to 3.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and scope, and the second adds crucial context about manual creation. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, earning a perfect score for efficiency.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and constraints but lacks details on return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. For a read-only tool with 2 parameters, it's minimally adequate but has clear gaps, resulting in a score of 3.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the impact of 'display_format' choices. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating further.

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 verb 'display' and resource 'invoices for a specific date', with the parenthetical '(READ-ONLY)' reinforcing the action. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_invoices' or 'get_invoice', which limits the score to 4 rather than 5.

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 implies usage context by noting invoices 'must be created manually in Cliniko', suggesting this tool is for viewing existing data. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_invoices' or 'get_invoice', and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, resulting in a score of 3.

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