Doktor MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions what the tool returns (specialties, articles, doctors) but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational constraints.

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 that front-load the core functionality and then specify the return values. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse quickly.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and returns but lacks details about behavioral constraints, error cases, or relationship to sibling tools. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps that could hinder optimal tool selection and invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't contradict it either. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('find which specialists treat it and available doctors') and resources ('medical condition or disease', 'doktor.mx'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on condition-based search rather than symptom, insurance, or doctor-specific searches, making its scope explicit.

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 context by specifying it's for finding specialists and doctors based on a medical condition, which differentiates it from tools like 'buscar_por_sintoma' or 'buscar_doctor'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, leaving some ambiguity about overlapping use cases.

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