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 states the tool provides 'instructions' (implying read-only, informational output), but doesn't clarify format (e.g., text, steps, links), potential side effects, or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it's not misleading.

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: 'Get instructions on how to create invoices in Cliniko (manual process)'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, includes clarifying scope in parentheses, and has zero wasted words. Every element earns its place.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on output format or behavioral context. For a purely informational tool, this is passable but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent on what to expect.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully handles parameters, and the description doesn't add unnecessary param details.

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: 'Get instructions on how to create invoices in Cliniko (manual process)'. It specifies the action ('Get instructions'), resource ('invoices in Cliniko'), and scope ('manual process'), which distinguishes it from automated invoice creation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'demo_invoice_generation' or 'display_invoices_for_date', preventing a perfect score.

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 minimal usage guidance. It implies this tool is for learning about manual invoice creation, but doesn't specify when to use it versus alternatives like 'demo_invoice_generation' or 'create_invoice' (if it existed). No explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent with little contextual direction.

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