medicover-mcp

list_patients

Identify all patients under your account, including dependents, and obtain their unique patient IDs required for managing appointments.

Instructions

List every patient the logged-in account can act on.

Returns the account holder plus any linked dependents (e.g. children). Each entry has a stable patient_id (MRN) used by all other tools, and is_account_holder marks the logged-in user. Use these IDs — never names — for the patient-scoped tools.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_patients"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: it returns account holder and linked dependents, provides stable `patient_id` (MRN), and marks the logged-in user with `is_account_holder`. This goes beyond the empty input schema, though it could mention potential pagination or limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, the second adds behavioral details and usage guidance. It is front-loaded and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no annotations, no parameters, and an output schema (assumed adequate), the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool does, what the output contains, and how to use the results. No gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With no parameters, the schema coverage is 100% and the description adds meaning by explaining that no arguments are needed and that the tool lists all patients under the account. The description clarifies the implicit scope, justifying a score above baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly specifies the action ('list'), resource ('patients'), and scope ('every patient the logged-in account can act on'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools focused on appointments and filters by explicitly stating it returns patients available for the account, which is a unique purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear guidance on using the output: 'Use these IDs — never names — for the patient-scoped tools.' This tells the agent how to apply the results. While no explicit 'when not to use' is stated, the lack of alternative patient-listing tools makes this sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server