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 action ('List all practitioners') but fails to describe key behaviors such as pagination handling, response format, error conditions, or any limitations (e.g., rate limits or authentication needs). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates beyond its basic purpose.

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 extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, this brevity borders on under-specification, as it omits necessary context and details that would enhance usability, slightly reducing its effectiveness despite the efficient structure.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It does not explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like pagination or error handling. For a list operation with two parameters and no structured output, more context is needed to ensure the agent can invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 parameters 'page' and 'per_page' clearly documented. The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as default values or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation without additional input from the description.

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 all practitioners' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('practitioners'), providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes a 'practitioner' and does not differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'list_patients' or 'list_businesses', leaving ambiguity about scope and distinctions.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'list_patients' or 'list_businesses', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone without explicit direction.

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