Doktor MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists specialties with doctor counts, which suggests a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it lacks details on potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, which are important for a tool without annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes no unnecessary details, making it highly concise and effective.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for a basic listing operation. It explains what is returned, but could be improved by mentioning the format of the output (e.g., list structure) or any limitations, though this is less critical for such a straightforward tool.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns (specialties with doctor counts), which goes beyond the schema. This justifies a baseline score above 3 for providing useful output semantics.

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 ('List all available medical specialties') and resource ('doktor.mx directory'), including additional context about the output ('with the number of registered doctors in each one'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'buscar_doctor' or 'ciudades_disponibles' by focusing on specialties rather than doctors, locations, or search functions.

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 retrieving a directory of specialties with doctor counts, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'buscar_doctor' or 'buscar_por_padecimiento'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat open-ended.

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