Skip to main content
Glama
babybuddy

babybuddy-mcp

Official
by babybuddy

medications_list_medications

Retrieve medication administration records with filters for child, date range, name, dosage unit, tags, and ordering. Access Baby Buddy medication logs to track dosing history.

Instructions

List medication administration records with optional filters.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoFilter by exact date, YYYY-MM-DD
nameNoFilter by exact medication name
tagsNoFilter by tag names (records having all listed tags)
limitNoMaximum number of records to return
child_idNoFilter by child ID. Use list_children to get IDs.
date_maxNoEnd of date range, YYYY-MM-DD
date_minNoStart of date range, YYYY-MM-DD
orderingNoOrder by field, e.g. 'time' or '-time' (descending)
dosage_unitNoFilter by dosage unit: mg, ml, tablets, drops

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' weakly implies a read-only operation, but there is no mention of pagination, default ordering, filter combination semantics, or side-effect safety.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, resource, and filter capability efficiently.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With full schema coverage and an output schema, the tool is callable as specified. However, the bare description leaves gaps around filter interactions, default ordering, and read-only reassurance, which matter for a 9-parameter tool with no annotations.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the 9 parameters with detailed descriptions (e.g., 'YYYY-MM-DD', 'records having all listed tags'). The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('medication administration records'), clarifying that this returns administration events, not a medication catalog. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling list tools, but the resource is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling medications_create/update/delete tools or other resource-specific list tools. The operation is stated, but no context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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