get_clinicianRetrieve a single clinician's record by UUID, optionally including practice email and unredacted contact details.
One clinician by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clinician_id | Yes | ||
| include_contact_details | No | Include the clinician's practice email address, and stop redacting email addresses, phone numbers, NHS-number-shaped digit groups and UK postcodes typed into names and other text |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 nothing beyond that, and notably omits the significant data-handling behavior around contact details: the schema says contact info is redacted by default unless include_contact_details is set.
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?
It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A four-word fragment front-loads nothing useful and every omitted detail (id required, redaction default) had to be recovered from the schema.
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 only minimal annotations, the description carries the burden for a tool that returns sensitive clinician data. The default-redaction behavior and the nature of the returned record are never surfaced, leaving an agent to infer them from the schema alone.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 50%: clinician_id carries a UUID pattern but no prose description, while include_contact_details has a rich schema description. The description text supplies no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented required id parameter.
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 fragment 'One clinician by id.' does state a verb+resource (retrieve a single clinician) and implicitly distinguishes itself from list_clinicians. However it is a terse fragment rather than a clear sentence, and it offers no sibling differentiation beyond the singular/plural contrast.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given. It does not say when to prefer get_clinician over list_clinicians, get_clinician_agenda, or find_availability, nor does it mention that an id must be known beforehand.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.