Health by Dr Brad

Official

by DrBradStanfield

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Hybrid

Change the profile the plan is computed from

update_profile

DestructiveIdempotent

Update the personal details (sex, birth year, birth month, height) that every health suggestion is derived from, so an incorrect profile is corrected before the plan is computed.

Instructions

Change who the record is about: sex, birth year, birth month, height in cm. Every suggestion is derived from them, so a wrong one makes the whole plan wrong. Setting a field the record does not hold yet is an add: send it on its own. CHANGING one the record already holds needs expected with the value you believe is there now, read from the record first — a mismatch refuses the call and writes nothing. This overwrites: the profile is one last-write-wins object with no earlier version to read back. Display preferences (units) are not yours to change. On the hosted server this takes two calls: the first answers with what it would do and a confirm receipt; show it to the user and call again with confirm and approval (the user’s own words, quoted verbatim) only after their own yes, in their own words.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sex`	No	The sex the plan is computed for.
`confirm`	No	Hosted server, second call only: the receipt the first call returned, after the user’s own yes.
`approval`	No
`expected`	No	What you believe the record holds now, per field you are changing. `null` claims the field is unset.
`heightCm`	No	Height in centimetres.
`birthYear`	No	Year of birth, e.g. 1971.
`birthMonth`	No	Month of birth, 1–12.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`changed`	Yes	Every field that moved. Empty when the record already said that.
`confirm`	No	The receipt to send back, unchanged, after the user’s own yes.
`proposal`	No	True on the first call of a two-phase write: nothing was written yet.
`confirmFrom`	No	When the receipt becomes usable. Do not call before it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint) by disclosing that a mismatched `expected` refuses the call and writes nothing, that the profile is a last-write-wins object with no earlier version to read back, and that the hosted server requires a receipt/confirm/approval second call. These are exactly the mutation risks an agent needs.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with what is being changed and why it matters before the mechanics. Minor redundancy in the closing confirmation instructions ('their own yes, in their own words' / 'quoted verbatim'), but nearly every clause carries operational weight.

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 destructive, 7-parameter, confirm-gated mutation with an output schema present, the description covers prerequisites, refusal behavior, overwrite semantics, and the two-call flow, leaving nothing essential for correct invocation unstated.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Though schema coverage is 86%, the description supplies semantics the schema lacks: the add-alone rule for unset fields, the meaning and requirement of `expected` per changed field, and the purpose of `approval` (user's own words, quoted verbatim) which has no schema description at all.

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 ('Change who the record is about: sex, birth year, birth month, height in cm') and immediately scopes the blast radius ('Every suggestion is derived from them'). It is clearly distinguished from siblings like read_record and correct_value by being the profile-writer.

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?

Explicitly splits add vs change semantics ('send it on its own' vs 'needs `expected` ... read from the record first'), tells the agent to read the record before changing, and routes to the two-call hosted flow only when applicable. It even excludes out-of-scope work ('Display preferences (units) are not yours to change').

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

Deploy Server