Retrieve de-identified text from a health document batch after automated policy checks return PASS, enabling safe use of prescriptions, reports, or PDFs with coding agents.
Retorna texto PASS (único) ou pacote organizado do lote; outros estados bloqueiam.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
| 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?
The description only hints at blocking behavior for certain states, without explaining side effects, permissions, or potential errors. Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden but falls short of disclosing clear behavioral details.
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 concise and structurally simple, using a single sentence that is easy to parse. However, the brevity contributes to ambiguity, though it does not appear overly verbose or confusing.
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 lack of an output schema, the description attempts to describe the return value but does so cryptically ('texto PASS'). It fails to explain error conditions, the meaning of 'PASS', or what constitutes 'organized batch package', leaving significant gaps in 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?
The description does not mention the 'job_id' parameter at all. With schema coverage at 0%, the description adds no semantic value for this parameter, leaving the agent without guidance on its meaning or usage.
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 states the tool returns 'PASS text' or an organized batch package, but the meaning of 'PASS' and the exact nature of the returned data are unclear. It is not a tautology, but it lacks specificity and does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'consultar_job'.
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?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention that 'other states block' provides a precondition but does not clarify the appropriate context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.