get_vaccinationRetrieve complete details for a specific vaccination, including covered diseases, programme, coverage, organisation, and confirmation source from your health record.
One vaccination in full: diseases covered, vaccination programme, coverage, organisation, and whether a pharmacy or health record confirmed it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vaccination_id | Yes | VaccinationIdentifier from get_vaccinations |
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 the description adds context about the returned fields, including confirmation source (pharmacy or health record). It does not disclose potential incomplete data despite openWorldHint, but the annotation covers that. No contradiction.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('One vaccination in full') and then lists the returned aspects. It is concise and well-structured with 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 simple detail-fetch tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the return content. It doesn't explicitly state that the ID must come from get_vaccinations, but that is covered in the schema. The openWorldHint annotation adds context about potential incompleteness, which is not in the description but is already present as an annotation.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for vaccination_id referencing get_vaccinations. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it stays at baseline 3.
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 clearly states the tool returns a single vaccination's full details, enumerating specific aspects (diseases, programme, coverage, organisation, confirmation source). It distinguishes from the plural sibling get_vaccinations by specifying 'One vaccination'.
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 usage for retrieving details of a specific vaccination, contrasting with get_vaccinations which lists vaccinations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites beyond the parameter reference in the schema. The schema's parameter description 'from get_vaccinations' provides the prerequisite, but that's in the schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.