get_medication_cardRetrieve a patient's current medication list from the Danish Fælles Medicinkort, sorted newest first, with dosage, reason, active substance, start date, and status.
Current medicine on Fælles Medicinkort, newest first: drug, form, strength, dosage text, reason (Cause), active substance, start date and status. Use OrdinationId with get_medication_details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 and openWorldHint, so the description only adds ordering and field enumeration. It discloses that the output is sorted newest first and contains the listed clinical attributes, including the OrdinationId for downstream calls. No contradiction with annotations; adds useful behavioral detail beyond the structured hints.
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?
Two sentences present the core information without fluff, front-loading the resource and ordering. The field list is dense but necessary given the lack of an output schema. No redundant phrases; every clause serves a 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 no-parameter, read-only list tool, the description covers the returned fields, ordering, and a pointer to the follow-up tool. It does not define the result shape (e.g., array) or error behavior, but those are not critical for an agent selecting the tool. Given the absence of an output schema, the field enumeration is essential and provided.
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 input schema is empty (no parameters), so the rubric baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level meaning because none exist; the mention of OrdinationId refers to another tool's parameter. Schema coverage is effectively 100% and nothing is missing.
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 states the tool returns the current medication list from Fælles Medicinkort with a defined field set and ordering. It names the specific sibling get_medication_details for per-ordination lookups, distinguishing the list from detail tools. This is a specific verb-resource statement that resolves ambiguity among siblings.
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 description implies the tool is the entry point for viewing a patient's active medications, with no parameters required. It explicitly routes users to get_medication_details using the OrdinationId, but doesn't enumerate exclusions like prescriptions or vaccinations. Clear context, but no explicit when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.