Skip to main content
Glama
jamesrosing

tebra-mcp-server

by jamesrosing
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Update Patient

tebra_update_patient
Idempotent

Update a Tebra patient's details by ID. Only supplied fields (name, address, contact, etc.) are changed; practice defaults to first if not specified.

Instructions

Update an existing patient in Tebra. Only provided fields will be changed. The practice is required by Tebra; if practiceName/practiceId are omitted, the account's first practice is used automatically.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityNoOptional updated city
emailNoOptional updated email address
stateNoOptional updated state
genderNoOptional updated gender
zipCodeNoOptional updated ZIP code
address1NoOptional updated street address line 1
address2NoOptional updated street address line 2
lastNameNoOptional updated last name
firstNameNoOptional updated first name
homePhoneNoOptional updated home phone number
patientIdYesTebra patient ID to update
practiceIdNoPractice ID (alternative to practiceName)
dateOfBirthNoOptional updated date of birth (ISO 8601)
mobilePhoneNoOptional updated mobile phone number
practiceNameNoPractice name (auto-resolved to the account's first practice if omitted)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.6.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / gender / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "Male",
+  "Female",
+  "Unknown"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / practiceId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Practice ID (alternative to practiceName)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / practiceName
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Practice name (auto-resolved to the account's first practice if omitted)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.2.5

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: only provided fields are changed, and omitted practiceName/practiceId falls back to the account's first practice. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is two tight sentences with the core update semantics front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence adds value, and the practice fallback nuance earns its place.

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?

The schema covers all parameters and annotations cover the safety profile. The description handles the update semantics and the practice requirement nuance. The only minor omission is return behavior, but for an update operation without an output schema this is not critical.

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%, with all 15 parameters individually documented. The description adds useful context for practiceName/practiceId resolution, but the schema already carries the parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing patient in Tebra.' It also clarifies partial update semantics with 'Only provided fields will be changed,' which distinguishes it from create_patient and get_patient. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The description implies its usage context: updating an existing patient, and it explains the practice defaulting behavior. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_patient for new patients or search_patients to resolve patient IDs. Usage is inferable but not directly guided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools