Skip to main content
Glama
aks129

HealthClawGuardrails

by aks129
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Submit Real-World Action for Confirmation

action_commit
Destructive

Submit a reviewed care action for patient approval via their own dashboard or Telegram. This does not execute it; only the patient's out-of-band Approve tap triggers execution.

Instructions

Submit a previously proposed action for the patient's OWN out-of-band confirmation (their dashboard or Telegram) AFTER they've reviewed and verbally/textually agreed to the draft. Requires step-up authorization (call fhir_get_token first; pass as _stepUpToken). This call does NOT execute anything and never accepts or sends any 'human confirmed' flag — only the patient tapping Approve in their own out-of-band channel can trigger execution. Returns status 'awaiting_confirmation' and is terminal for your turn: do not call action_commit again for the same action_id. Use action_status to check whether the patient has approved yet.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
action_idYesID returned by action_propose

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.8.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Description adds crucial context beyond annotations: it clarifies the call does not execute anything, never accepts a 'human confirmed' flag, and is terminal. This aligns with openWorldHint and adds detail not present in destructiveHint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is concise at 4 sentences, each sentence adds unique value. Front-loaded with main purpose. Could trim minor redundancy but overall efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, description explains return status and terminal behavior. Includes prerequisite step-up token. Lacks only minor details like error cases, but sufficient for a simple tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter action_id, so description adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the tool submits a proposed action for out-of-band patient confirmation, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like action_propose and action_status. It uses specific verbs and resources.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when to use (after patient agrees to draft) and when not (do not call again for same action_id). Mentions prerequisites (fhir_get_token) and alternatives (action_status).

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools