MyAtriumHealth MCP Server

mah_list_medications

Read-only

Retrieve a patient's current medication list from Epic MyChart, including drug names, patient-friendly names, dosing instructions, and prescriber details.

Instructions

List current medications: name, patient-friendly name, dosing instructions (sig) and prescriber.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "mah_list_medications"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`view`	No	Response shape: "compact" (default) drops fields the response already carries elsewhere; "full" returns every field this server understands. compact strips image/avatar URLs from every response, and on the readers with a projection derived from a captured payload (mah_list_allergies, mah_list_health_issues, mah_list_immunizations, mah_list_medications, mah_list_care_team, mah_list_goals, mah_list_test_results, mah_list_past_visits, mah_list_insurance, mah_list_messages) also reduces each record to its clinically meaningful fields; "full" returns MyAtriumHealth's payload untouched. Every other reader gets the URL strip only, rather than a field list nobody verified.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.3Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral value by naming the returned fields (name, patient-friendly name, sig, prescriber) in the absence of an output schema, but it says nothing about the compact/full projection behavior or record volume.

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 zero filler that delivers the verb, the resource, and the payload fields. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is buried.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read-only list tool with no output schema, naming the returned fields largely compensates for the missing output schema, and the view parameter is fully documented in the schema. Only the 'current' scope (vs historical) and pagination behavior are left unstated.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single view parameter has a thorough schema description covering compact vs full semantics, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond it, which is the expected baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (current medications) and even enumerates the fields returned, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the other mah_list_* readers, but the resource noun is unambiguous enough to route correctly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling list readers. Usage is only implied by the resource name; an agent gets no help deciding between this and mah_list_health_issues or mah_list_allergies.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.