Fetch clinical observations for a patient using their FHIR ID. Provide patient_id and an optional limit to get the observation records.
Trae las observaciones clínicas de un paciente por su ID FHIR.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| patient_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. 'Trae' clearly indicates a read/fetch operation rather than a mutation, but the description adds little beyond that—no mention of how limit affects results, ordering, pagination, or other behavioral details.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and key identifier with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose.
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 simple two-parameter read with an output schema, the essential invocation pattern is present. However, it does not relate the tool to its sibling search_patients, explain the limit parameter, or disclose any behavioral caveats, leaving minor gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to patient_id by calling it a FHIR ID, but it says nothing about the limit parameter, leaving its behavior to be inferred only from its name and default value.
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 description uses the specific verb 'Trae' with a clear resource ('las observaciones clínicas') and scope ('por su ID FHIR'), making its purpose obvious. It does not explicitly contrast with search_patients, but the resource type and lookup-by-ID semantics distinguish it well.
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?
The phrase 'por su ID FHIR' clearly signals that this tool should be used when a FHIR patient identifier is already available. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when to prefer search_patients or state exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.