Doktor MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches and returns articles with specific fields, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or error handling. While it covers the basic operation, it lacks details about performance constraints or potential side effects that would be helpful for an agent.

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

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

The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, the second specifies the return format. Every word earns its place with no redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly while covering essential information.

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

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with two parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does and returns, but lacks information about authentication, rate limits, error cases, or how results are sorted/filtered. For a search tool without structured output documentation, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (query and limit) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as query format examples or limit usage context. This meets the baseline score of 3 since the schema already provides complete parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Search health articles on doktor.mx') and resource ('about medical conditions, treatments, symptoms, and prevention'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like buscar_doctor (doctors) or buscar_por_padecimiento (by condition). It explicitly mentions the return format (title, summary, link), which helps differentiate its purpose from other search tools in the set.

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

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

The description implies usage for searching health articles, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like buscar_por_padecimiento or buscar_por_sintoma. It mentions the types of content (medical conditions, treatments, etc.) but doesn't specify exclusions or compare to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer context from tool names alone.

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