Lists the account holder and any proxy-access patients (such as a child) available to this login, returning IDs to use when setting the active patient.
List the patients this login can open: the account holder plus anyone who has granted proxy access (a child, for example). Use the returned id with mah_set_active_patient.
| 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 useful scope detail about what the result set contains (account holder + proxy grants) and how the id is consumed downstream, but says nothing about auth requirements, result size, or ordering.
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 filler; the scope definition is front-loaded and the follow-up call hint comes last. Efficient, though the second sentence is more of a workflow tag than an explanation of the tool itself.
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 and no parameters, the description carries the burden of describing the return value and does so at least for the key field (id) and the population of patients. It stops short of saying what other fields each patient entry contains, but that is a minor gap for a simple enumeration tool.
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 the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics burden to carry. The description mentions 'the returned id' but adds no parameter detail because none exists.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List the patients this login can open') and defines the resource scope precisely — the account holder plus proxy-access grantees such as a child. That scope inherently separates it from clinical siblings like mah_list_medications, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Provides clear workflow context by directing the agent to pass the returned id to mah_set_active_patient, which effectively signals when this tool is needed (before selecting an active patient). There are no explicit when-not conditions or disambiguation against other mah_list_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.