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 explicitly states 'READ-ONLY', which clarifies that this is a safe, non-destructive operation. However, it does not cover other behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps 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 is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get invoices for a specific appointment') and includes a key behavioral note ('READ-ONLY'). There is no wasted text, 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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the absence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and safety but lacks details on return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools, which would enhance completeness for 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'appointment_id' clearly documented. The description does not add any additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('invoices for a specific appointment'), making the purpose explicit. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_invoice', 'get_patient_invoices', or 'display_invoices_for_date', which limits its score to 4 instead of 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_patient_invoices' or 'display_invoices_for_date'. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts, offering only a basic functional statement without usage differentiation.

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