get_medication_detailsFetch complete details for a single medication order on the card: ATC code, administration, substitution, reimbursement, dosage period, and audit trail.
One medicine on the card in full: ATC code, administration, substitution and reimbursement, dosage period, and who created, changed or stopped it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ordination_id | Yes | OrdinationId from get_medication_card |
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=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by enumerating the returned fields, which is useful but does not disclose anything beyond that (e.g., pagination, performance, or error behavior). With annotations covering the core traits, this is a typical case where the description provides some value but not deep transparency.
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 with zero waste. The core purpose ('One medicine on the card in full') is front-loaded, followed by a precise list of the returned data. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, this description covers the essential information: what it returns and its scope. It doesn't mention error cases or response format, but those are less critical here. Given the low complexity and the presence of readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description is nearly complete, leaving only minor gaps like explicit usage guidance (covered in dimension 2).
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 100% – the schema already explains that ordination_id is the ID from get_medication_card. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter itself; it focuses on the output. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb ('get') and a clear resource ('medicine details'), and explicitly lists the fields returned (ATC code, administration, substitution, reimbursement, dosage period, and audit trail). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_medication_card (which likely returns a summary list) and get_prescription (which may be a different resource). No ambiguity.
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?
Usage context is implied: 'One medicine on the card in full' suggests this is the detailed view for a single ordination, as opposed to the card overview. The parameter description ('OrdinationId from get_medication_card') hints at the prerequisite workflow, but the description never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it give negative guidance. It's not misleading, but it leaves the routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.