HealthLedger MCP

Add substance use log

add_substance_use_log

Log substance use events including type, amount, and context to track exposure over time.

Instructions

Store time-varying substance exposure such as alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, cannabis, or other.

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": {
      "substance": "<substance>"
    },
    "name": "add_substance_use_log"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`unit`	No
`user`	No
`notes`	No
`route`	No
`amount`	No
`context`	No
`frequency`	No
`substance`	Yes
`timestamp`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds no further behavioral context such as authorization needs, potential destructive actions, or response details. Minimal disclosure beyond annotations.

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 at the expense of substance. It could be expanded to include key parameter info without becoming verbose.

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?

Given 9 parameters, 1 required, and an output schema, the description fails to cover input semantics, return values, or use cases. It is inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly without additional guidance.

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% — the description adds no explanation for any of the 9 parameters. The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which lack clarity (e.g., 'route', 'context', 'unit'). Critical for a complex tool.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Store') and the resource ('time-varying substance exposure'), with specific examples (alcohol, nicotine, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling 'add_*' tools that handle other record types.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for logging substance exposures, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternative tools (e.g., analyze_substance_trend). No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server