ClinicSense MCP Server

clinicsense_type

Enter text into a specific numbered field on the active ClinicSense page, enabling agents to complete form inputs after reading field numbers.

Instructions

Type text into a numbered field on the current ClinicSense page.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "element": "<element>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "clinicsense_type"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	Text to type.
`element`	Yes	Field number from the last read.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Nov 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It never says whether typing replaces or appends to existing field content, whether it submits or triggers anything, what happens on an out-of-range element number, or whether the call reports success. For an action-performing UI automation tool this is a meaningful gap.

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?

One short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. Nothing in it is redundant with the title or schema restatement.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no annotations, no output schema, and an inherently side-effecting UI action, the definition leaves key questions unanswered: does it overwrite existing text, is a prior read required, and what is returned or thrown on failure. The single sentence is not sufficient for an agent to call it correctly in edge cases.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented, including the link between 'element' and the last read. The description adds only the framing that the field lives on the 'current page' and does not elaborate on text encoding, clearing behavior, or element validity, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Type') and target ('text into a numbered field on the current ClinicSense page'), which is clearly distinct from the read/click/open siblings. It does not explicitly name or contrast with an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: 'numbered field from the last read' in the schema suggests a preceding read step, and 'current page' implies an open page. The description itself gives no explicit preconditions, no when-not-to-use, and no alternative such as clicking before typing.

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

Deploy Server