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 adds useful context beyond basic functionality: it specifies the platform ('on doktor.mx'), includes a disclaimer requirement ('Always includes a medical disclaimer'), and clarifies limitations ('Does NOT provide diagnoses'). However, it doesn't mention other behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid inputs, which would be helpful for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 highly concise and well-structured: two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, platform, disclaimer requirement, and limitation. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague language, making it easy to parse and understand 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for a simple search tool: it clarifies the tool's purpose, platform, and key behavioral notes (disclaimer, no diagnosis). However, it lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, which could help an agent use it more effectively in a broader context.

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 three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'ciudad' interacts with symptom searching or clarify the 'limit' parameter's effect on results). Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate with extra semantic details.

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: 'Given a symptom, suggest possible conditions and specialists on doktor.mx.' It specifies the verb ('suggest') and resources ('possible conditions and specialists'), and distinguishes it from diagnosis tools by explicitly stating 'Does NOT provide diagnoses.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'buscar_doctor' or 'buscar_por_padecimiento' beyond the symptom focus.

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 mentioning 'Given a symptom' and specifying what it does NOT do ('Does NOT provide diagnoses'), which provides some guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'buscar_doctor' (which might search for doctors directly) or 'buscar_por_padecimiento' (which might search by condition rather than symptom), leaving room for ambiguity.

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