Void or delete a patient encounter by providing its UUID.
Void/delete an encounter
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": {
"uuid": "<uuid>"
},
"name": "deleteEncounter"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Void/delete an encounter' implying a destructive action, but fails to describe side effects (e.g., cascading deletions, reversibility, audit trail). An agent lacks critical information about the tool's impact.
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?
The description is extremely concise (3 words), but at the cost of under-specification. It lacks necessary details such as return behavior, prerequisites, or parameter explanation. True conciseness should be informative, not minimal.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief. It fails to cover return values, error conditions, or the meaning of 'void' versus 'delete'. A complete description would include these elements to guide correct invocation.
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 description provides no additional meaning for the single required parameter 'uuid'. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent must infer that uuid refers to the encounter's UUID. The description does not clarify format, constraints, or how to obtain valid UUIDs.
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 'Void/delete an encounter' clearly identifies the action (void/delete) and the resource (encounter). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like createOrUpdateEncounterTransaction and findEncounters, but lacks specificity on the nature of void vs delete. A more precise description would strengthen purpose clarity.
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives among sibling tools like findEncounters for reading or createOrUpdateEncounterTransaction for modifications. This omission reduces its usefulness for an AI agent deciding which tool to invoke.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.