Retrieve a chronological timeline of health events—diagnoses, visits, lab panels, medications, hospitalizations, and vaccinations—for a chosen number of past days.
Chronology of health events (diagnoses, visits, panels, medications, hospitalizations, vaccinations).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond the content list: it does not say how results are ordered, how far back the default window reaches, or whether the list is capped. Listing event types is purpose information, not behavioral disclosure.
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?
A single compact sentence with no filler, and the resource is stated up front. The parenthetical enumeration is long but each item earns its place by defining scope.
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-value detail is not required. However, for a tool with a single undocumented time-window parameter and many overlapping siblings, the definition leaves the agent without enough to call it confidently versus alternatives.
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 the single 'days' parameter, so the schema supplies only a name and a default of 3650. The description never mentions the time-window parameter at all, leaving an agent to guess whether the default ~10-year span is intended and whether the argument filters or paginates.
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 (a health-event chronology) and enumerates exactly what it contains (diagnoses, visits, panels, medications, hospitalizations, vaccinations), which implicitly distinguishes this aggregate view from single-domain siblings like get_diagnoses or get_medications. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, so the retrieval action itself is only implied, but the scope is unambiguous.
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 choose this over get_health_summary, get_trend, get_diagnoses, or query_observations, all of which overlap in subject matter. No prerequisites, time-window conventions, or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.