get_prescriptionsRetrieve a list of open prescriptions with drug, strength, dosage, validity dates, remaining units, and status to review active medication orders.
Open prescriptions (recepter): drug, strength, dosage, valid from and to, remaining units and status. Use PrescriptionId with get_prescription for dispensings left and the pharmacy.
| 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?
The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish this as a safe, potentially changing read operation. The description adds field enumeration but does not describe behavior such as pagination, ordering, or how 'open' is determined. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 dense sentences deliver the return field list and an explicit routing instruction with no filler. The key scoping information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.
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 no parameters, the description sufficiently explains what is returned and where to go for richer details. For a simple read-only list tool, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, so the description has little to explain. It helpfully mentions that PrescriptionId belongs with get_prescription rather than this tool, reducing the chance of misuse, though it does not explicitly say 'no parameters required.'
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 identifies the resource as open prescriptions and enumerates the returned fields (drug, strength, dosage, validity dates, remaining units, status). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_prescription by pointing out that the singular tool is needed for dispense-level detail.
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 second sentence explicitly routes the agent: use PrescriptionId with get_prescription when dispense-level data or pharmacy info is needed, implying this tool is for the summary-level open prescription list. This directly clarifies when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.