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. It discloses that the tool returns detailed profile data (biography, specialties, etc.) and mentions the source (doktor.mx), which is useful context. However, it lacks behavioral details like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving gaps 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get the full profile') and lists return details concisely. Every part adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns in detail. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., data freshness, limitations), slightly reducing completeness.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'slug' parameter well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'URL slug' and the example format, but doesn't provide additional syntax or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('full profile of a specific doctor'), specifying it's by URL slug. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'buscar_doctor' (search) by focusing on retrieving detailed information for a known doctor, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 when you have a doctor's URL slug to fetch their complete profile, contrasting with search tools like 'buscar_doctor' for finding doctors. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving some guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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