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 adds 'READ-ONLY' to indicate safety, which is helpful, but fails to cover other aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of invoices, error handling). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential complexity.

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—it states the action, target, and a key behavioral trait ('READ-ONLY') without redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving invoices for a patient) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and safety but misses details like return values or error cases, making it incomplete for full agent 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents the 'patient_id' parameter fully. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no details on ID format or constraints), warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 patient'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_invoice' or 'display_invoices_for_date', which limits it to a 4 instead of a 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 like 'get_invoice' or 'list_invoices'. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites, leaving usage context implied at best.

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