Associates disease, competence, and procedure inputs with dated protocol billing records in SUS rare-disease views, excluding diagnosis and patient eligibility.
Dated protocol/billing association only; never diagnosis or patient eligibility.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| disease | Yes | ||
| procedure | Yes | ||
| competence | Yes |
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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully rules out diagnosis and patient eligibility, but says nothing about whether this is read-only or mutating, what permissions are needed, what side effects occur, or what the response contains.
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 one terse sentence with no filler, and the negative constraint is front-loaded. However, it is a fragment rather than structured guidance, and its brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail for a three-parameter tool.
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?
For a tool with three required undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It states only a scope exclusion and leaves the agent without the positive purpose, input semantics, or expected result.
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?
All three required parameters (disease, procedure, competence) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. It provides no explanation of what values to supply or how the parameters combine to form an association.
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 is a fragment that names a resource ('Dated protocol/billing association') and a negative scope ('never diagnosis or patient eligibility'), but it never states a clear action or what the association produces. It does not distinguish this tool from any sibling, all of which appear unrelated.
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?
The only guidance is a negative exclusion: 'never diagnosis or patient eligibility'. There is no positive statement of when to use this tool, what problem it solves, or which sibling to use instead, so an agent must guess the triggering context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.