Nova

Log blood pressure

log_vitals

Records blood pressure and pulse readings, compares them with doctor-set limits in care notes, and alerts family when values fall out of range.

Instructions

Record a blood pressure reading: 'my blood pressure is 118 over 72, pulse 70'. Nova compares it with the limits the doctor wrote in the care notes and tells the family if it's out of range.

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": {
      "systolic": "<systolic>",
      "diastolic": "<diastolic>"
    },
    "name": "log_vitals"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pulse`	No	Pulse, if said
`position`	No	If said
`systolic`	Yes	Top number
`diastolic`	Yes	Bottom number

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?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses an important side effect: Nova compares the reading with doctor-written limits and tells the family if it is out of range. It does not fully explain storage, notification timing, or what happens for in-range readings, but the key behavioral consequence is surfaced.

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?

It is two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key behavioral outcome. There is no wasted text.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a low-complexity logging tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers purpose, an example invocation, and the main follow-on behavior. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is already 100%, so the schema documents all four parameters. The description still adds value by showing how the spoken phrase "118 over 72, pulse 70" maps to systolic, diastolic, and pulse, though it does not mention position.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Record a blood pressure reading," with a concrete spoken example. It is clearly a write/log operation, though it does not explicitly name the sibling get_vitals as the read alternative.

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?

The example utterance "my blood pressure is 118 over 72, pulse 70" clearly indicates the trigger condition: when the user reports a BP reading. It gives good usage context but does not state when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_vitals.

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