HealthLedger MCP

Add a tumor record

add_tumor_record

Log tumor and cancer details including name, type, site, diagnosis, stage, and biomarkers to track health records.

Instructions

Store tumor/cancer-related structured information as user-provided data.

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": {
      "tumor_name": "<tumor_name>"
    },
    "name": "add_tumor_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`user`	No
`grade`	No
`notes`	No
`stage`	No
`source`	No
`status`	No	active
`body_site`	No
`size_unit`	No
`size_value`	No
`tumor_name`	Yes
`cancer_type`	No
`diagnosis_date`	No
`treatment_status`	No
`biomarker_summary`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description adds no behavioral context. It does not explicitly state that it creates a new record or mention any side effects, permissions, or safety considerations.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Single sentence is concise but sacrifices necessary information. For a tool with 14 parameters, the description is under-specified and not structured to guide the agent.

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?

Given the complexity (14 parameters, no schema descriptions, output schema exists but not addressed), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to clarify input format, constraints, or what the tool returns, making it insufficient 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 provides no details about any of the 14 parameters. The agent receives no help understanding fields like tumor_name, stage, grade, etc. This is a critical gap for a tool with many parameters.

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 states the tool stores tumor/cancer-related structured information, clearly indicating its domain. The verb 'store' aligns with adding a record, and the specificity of 'tumor/cancer' differentiates it from sibling add_* tools like add_biomarker or add_condition.

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 vs alternatives. With many similar add_* tools, the description does not provide any context for appropriate use or exclusions. The agent is left to infer that it's for tumor-specific data.

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

Deploy Server