Retrieve a client's cognitive test scores for memory, reaction time, and processing speed, plus trends, with optional start and end dates to analyze change over time.
Cognitive test scores (memory, reaction time, processing speed) with trends.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | No | ||
| client_id | Yes | ||
| start_date | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state that this is a read-only fetch, whether dates are inclusive/exclusive, what defaults apply when start_date/end_date are null, or how trends are computed. Only the return content (scores) is hinted at.
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?
It is a single front-loaded fragment with no wasted words, which is good. However, it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise for a three-parameter data tool, so it doesn't fully earn its brevity.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple domain fetcher. Still, with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves date-range behavior and usage context unaddressed.
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 0% for all three parameters, so the description is the only possible source of meaning, yet it says nothing about client_id, start_date, or end_date. The names are largely self-explanatory, but date-range semantics and the null-default behavior are undocumented anywhere.
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 names the resource (cognitive test scores) and enumerates the specific sub-metrics returned (memory, reaction time, processing speed) plus trends. That clearly separates it from siblings like get_sleep_data or get_nutrition_data, though the verb is only implied by the tool name.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_trends, get_healthspan_domain_summary, or the other domain getters. No prerequisites, no mention of which client/date scenarios warrant it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.