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 is helpful for safety, but doesn't mention other traits like error handling, response format, or whether it requires authentication. It adds basic value but misses key operational details.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Get details of a specific invoice') and includes a key behavioral note ('READ-ONLY'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), 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. For a read-only retrieval tool, this is passable but leaves gaps in full contextual understanding.

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 'invoice_id' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or ID sourcing). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('details of a specific invoice'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_invoices' by specifying retrieval of a single invoice. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_appointment_invoices' or 'get_patient_invoices', which might retrieve related invoice subsets.

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 like 'list_invoices' or 'get_patient_invoices'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an invoice ID) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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