HealthLedger MCP

Add reproductive health record

add_reproductive_record

Log reproductive health records: menstrual cycles, pregnancies, contraception, fertility signs. Specify dates, flow intensity, pain, cervical mucus, gestational age, due dates, outcomes, and notes.

Instructions

Store menstrual cycle, pregnancy, contraception, fertility sign, or related reproductive 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": {
      "record_type": "<record_type>"
    },
    "name": "add_reproductive_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`user`	No
`notes`	No
`method`	No
`source`	No
`outcome`	No
`due_date`	No
`end_date`	No
`extra_json`	No
`pain_level`	No
`start_date`	No
`record_type`	Yes
`removal_date`	No
`cervical_mucus`	No
`flow_intensity`	No
`insertion_date`	No
`replacement_due_date`	No
`gestational_age_weeks`	No
`ovulation_predicted_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 write and non-idempotent, consistent with 'Store'. However, no additional behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, overwrite behavior, constraints) are disclosed beyond what annotations already provide.

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 15-word sentence, which is concise but too brief given the tool's complexity. It lacks structure and fails to front-load critical information beyond the basic purpose.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to cover parameter semantics, usage contexts, or example scenarios. With 18 parameters, the description is severely incomplete for correct invocation.

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 does not explain any of the 18 parameters. Terms like 'extra_json', 'method', 'pain_level' remain undefined, forcing significant inference by the agent.

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 purpose: storing reproductive health records, and lists specific types (menstrual cycle, pregnancy, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling add_* tools which target other health domains.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_health_record. The description implies reproductive-specific use but lacks any when-not or alternative references.

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

Deploy Server