MCP Cliniko Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List or search for appointments' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify pagination behavior (implied by 'page'/'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with no filters (e.g., returns all appointments). For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 phrase ('List or search for appointments') that front-loads the core purpose with zero wasted words. Every element earns its place by covering both listing and filtering aspects concisely.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the tool's scope (e.g., whether it returns past/future appointments), pagination defaults, error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools. For a complex filtering tool in a crowded namespace, more contextual guidance is needed.

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 all 8 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying filtering capability ('search for'). This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter interactions or default behaviors.

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 'List or search for appointments' clearly states the verb ('list'/'search') and resource ('appointments'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_appointment' (singular retrieval) or 'list_appointment_types' (different resource), which prevents 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_appointment' (for single appointments), 'list_patients' (different resource), and 'get_available_times' (related but distinct), the agent receives no help in choosing between them. The description merely restates the tool's function without contextual boundaries.

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