Nova

Approve medication changes

apply_care_changes

DestructiveIdempotent

Approve or discard reconciled medication changes from read_care_document; approval updates the care plan, saves instructions as a care note, and notifies Rose.

Instructions

Approve (or discard) a reconciled set of medication changes from read_care_document. Approving updates the plan, saves the instructions as a care note and tells Rose in plain words.

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": {
      "change_set_id": "<change_set_id>"
    },
    "name": "apply_care_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`approve`	No	True to apply, False to discard
`change_set_id`	Yes	The change_set_id from read_care_document

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotent=true, and the description adds real substance beyond them: approving mutates the care plan, writes a care note, and notifies Rose. What is not covered is reversibility — whether an applied change can be undone after the note is saved.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its duality, followed by the consequences. Nothing redundant.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the prerequisite, the two modes, and the side effects. Only the irreversibility of an approved change is left unstated for a destructive, irreversible-in-practice operation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the approve boolean polarity and the change_set_id source. The description restates 'approve (or discard)' but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (approve/discard) and resource (a reconciled set of medication changes), and states its origin: read_care_document. This distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling that produces the change set.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Implies the prerequisite clearly — the change_set_id must come from read_care_document — and states that the same call can discard. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g., when to discard rather than edit) but the usage context is unambiguous.

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