Health by Dr Brad

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Add a core measurement

add_measurement

Append one core health measurement, such as weight, blood pressure, or cholesterol, in SI or reported units. Refuses duplicate same-day values; use correction instead.

Instructions

Append one core-metric measurement (weight, waist, hba1c, ldl, total_cholesterol, hdl, triglycerides, systolic_bp, diastolic_bp, apob, creatinine, psa, lpa). Give the value in SI units, or pass unit with the unit it was reported in and it is converted. One value per metric per day: if that day already holds a value the call is refused and you should use correct_value instead. Only when the user asked to add a value; a failed correction is never turned into an add.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`unit`	No	The unit `value` is in, e.g. "mg/dL". Omit if it is already SI.
`value`	Yes	The number, in SI units unless `unit` says otherwise.
`metricType`	Yes	The core metric.
`recordedAt`	Yes	The user’s local calendar date, YYYY-MM-DD. Ask if you do not know it.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The row id — cite this to correct the row later.
`unit`	Yes	The SI unit the value is stored in.
`value`	Yes	The number as stored.
`metricType`	Yes	The core metric written.
`recordedAt`	Yes	The clinical day the row is filed under.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write; the description goes beyond that by disclosing the one-value-per-metric-per-day uniqueness rule, the refusal behavior on conflict, and the automatic unit-conversion behavior when `unit` is supplied. Those are exactly the runtime traits an agent cannot infer from the annotation flags.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the action and then the constraints, with no filler sentences. The inline parenthetical listing all thirteen metric types duplicates the schema enum verbatim and is the one mildly wasteful element.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Combined with the conflict/refusal rule, the conversion semantics, and the usage trigger, the description covers everything needed to call this mutation tool 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining the default-SI convention and that passing `unit` triggers conversion rather than storing the raw unit, which the schema only hints at with 'Omit if it is already SI.'

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Append one core-metric measurement') and enumerates the exact metric types, so the agent knows precisely what is written. It is distinguishable from sibling correct_value (referenced explicitly for the same-day conflict case) and from add_lab_values by the enumerated core-metric domain.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit trigger ('Only when the user asked to add a value'), an explicit exclusion ('a failed correction is never turned into an add'), and names the alternative tool to use when the day already holds a value (correct_value). Both the when and the when-not are stated with a routing decision.

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

Deploy Server