Confirms which patient the reading tools currently return data for by checking the MyChart portal, rather than relying on remembered context.
Which patient the reading tools are currently returning data for. Confirmed with the portal rather than reported from memory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral signal with 'Confirmed with the portal rather than reported from memory', implying a live freshness/verification guarantee rather than a cached value, though the wording is loose enough to leave the exact provenance ambiguous. It says nothing about authentication state, which siblings such as mah_sign_in and mah_auth_status suggest is relevant.
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?
Two short sentences with no padding, and the subject (which patient) is front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by adding provenance, though the missing verb makes the opening feel clipped rather than crisp.
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?
With no output schema, no parameters, and only two annotations, the description carries most of the burden. It conveys the concept of an active-patient context but never states what is actually returned (an identifier, a name, demographics) or under what conditions it would be empty or fail, leaving a real gap for a tool with no structured return definition.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter discussion, and the empty schema leaves nothing for it to compensate for.
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 identifies the resource ('which patient the reading tools are currently returning data for') but frames it as a noun clause rather than a verb+resource statement, so it never says the tool 'gets' or 'returns' anything. It is distinguishable from siblings like mah_list_patients and mah_set_active_patient, but an agent has to infer the action from context.
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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. The phrase 'the reading tools' weakly implies you would consult this before/while reading patient data, but the agent is never told to call it for that reason or how it relates to mah_set_active_patient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.