HealthLedger MCP

Add an allergy

add_allergy

Record an allergy or intolerance with details like allergen, reaction, and severity to maintain structured health data.

Instructions

Store a structured allergy or intolerance record.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "allergen": "<allergen>"
    },
    "name": "add_allergy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`user`	No
`notes`	No
`status`	No	active
`allergen`	Yes
`reaction`	No
`severity`	No
`noted_date`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so it's a destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., auth requirements, side effects, or what happens on duplicate).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks detail. It does not front-load key information beyond the tool's purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 7 parameters, no parameter documentation, and only a bare description, the tool definition is incomplete. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing input semantics.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the 7 parameters (e.g., format of 'allergen', permitted values for 'severity', or meaning of 'status'). The agent must rely solely on parameter names and types, which is insufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool stores an allergy or intolerance record, which is specific to the 'add' family and distinct from other health record adders. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like add_condition or add_medication.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_records, list_allergies). No prerequisites or usage context provided.

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

Deploy Server