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. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's read-only (explicitly stated) and that invoices must be pre-created in the web interface (a constraint). However, it doesn't cover other important aspects like pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters but not explained), rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a mutation-free tool.

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 ('List invoices with filtering options') and adds a critical constraint. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from constraints) for optimal clarity.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the read-only nature and creation constraint but lacks details on output format, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a list tool with filtering, this leaves some gaps, though the high schema coverage mitigates this somewhat.

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 the schema fully documents all 7 parameters (e.g., page, patient_id, status with enum). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'filtering options,' which is already evident from the schema. This meets the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 action ('List invoices') and resource ('invoices'), specifying it's a read-only operation with filtering capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_invoice' (singular) or 'display_invoices_for_date' (date-specific), which would be needed for 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 implies usage context by mentioning 'invoices must be created in Cliniko web interface,' suggesting this tool is for viewing existing invoices, not creating them. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_invoice' (for single invoices) or 'display_invoices_for_date' (for date-specific displays), leaving some ambiguity.

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