List patients this login can access, including the account holder and those with proxy access, like a child. Use the returned ID to set 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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context (account holder plus proxy-authorized patients, e.g. a child), but says nothing about ordering, empty results, or error behavior. Adequate but not rich beyond the annotation baseline.
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 sentences, zero padding. The scope of the result set is front-loaded and the follow-up call guidance comes second, matching the natural read-then-act order.
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 no-argument list tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what is listed, whose data it covers, and how to use the result. Missing only minor detail such as what an empty list means or whether ids are opaque strings.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 for a no-param tool. The mention of 'the returned id' correctly signals that identity comes from the response, not the input.
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 (List) and resource (patients) and immediately scopes the result set: the account holder plus anyone who granted proxy access. This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from siblings like mah_list_medications or mah_get_patient_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?
Explicitly routes the agent onward: 'Use the returned id with mah_set_active_patient,' which tells the caller what to do with the output and implies this is a prerequisite step for selecting a patient. It does not state any when-not conditions, but none are really needed for a simple enumeration tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.