HealthLedger MCP

List lab results

list_lab_results

Read-onlyIdempotent

List lab results from your personal health data, filtering by analyte, date range, or user as needed.

Instructions

List lab results, optionally filtered by analyte and date range.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_lab_results"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`user`	No
`limit`	No
`since`	No
`until`	No
`analyte`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description adds limited value by mentioning optional filters. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior via the 'limit' parameter or the scope of data returned.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. No unnecessary words.

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 five parameters and multiple sibling tools, the description is too brief. It lacks details on output format (despite having an output schema), does not differentiate from 'list_lab_reports', and provides no context on the 'user' parameter or pagination.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'analyte' and 'date range' (since/until) but omits 'user' and 'limit', leaving their purpose unclear. This 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 lists lab results with optional filtering. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling 'list_lab_reports', leaving ambiguity about what constitutes a lab result vs. a lab report.

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 like 'list_lab_reports' or other list tools. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites 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