Find standard OpenMRS concepts by query. Enter a search term to retrieve matching clinical concepts.
Search standard concepts
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "searchOpenMRSConcepts"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It only states it searches concepts with no mention of return format, pagination, side effects, or required permissions. Inadequate for a search tool.
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?
Extremely brief but missing critical information. Conciseness should not sacrifice clarity; here it does.
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 one optional parameter, the description should at least specify what is returned and how to use the query. It is incomplete for tool 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and description does not explain the 'q' parameter. The parameter name alone is insufficient; agents need to know it accepts a search query string.
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 'Search standard concepts' is vague. It does not specify what 'standard concepts' refers to (e.g., OpenMRS concepts) and fails to distinguish from sibling 'searchTerminologyConcepts'. The purpose is unclear.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'searchTerminologyConcepts'. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.