get_summaryGet a quick overview of your health record with counts of active, paused, and stopped medicines; open, closed, and future prescriptions; and given, planned, and overdue vaccinations.
Counts across the record: active, paused and stopped medicine; open, closed and future prescriptions; given, planned and overdue vaccinations. A cheap first call.
| 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 state readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it's a 'cheap' call, implying low cost/overhead, which is useful context beyond 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 sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and an efficient hint about its lightweight nature. No wasted words.
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 parameterless tool, the description fully conveys what it returns (counts across key health items) and when to use it. With annotations covering safety and openness, nothing essential is missing.
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?
There are no parameters, so the description's job is not to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly focuses on what the tool does, which is sufficient.
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?
Clearly states the tool counts items across medicine, prescriptions, and vaccinations, and labels itself as a 'cheap first call'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_medication_card or get_vaccinations, though the summary nature is implied.
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 phrase 'a cheap first call' strongly implies when to use: as an initial overview before diving into specifics. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to recognize it as a triage tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.