intakeq-mcp

get_note

Retrieves a clinical note by its IntakeQ ID, with every access audit-logged to protect patient PHI.

Instructions

Get a single clinical note by ID. PHI — every call is audit-logged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "note_id": "<note_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note_id`	Yes	The IntakeQ note ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds a critical behavioral disclosure: 'PHI — every call is audit-logged.' This warns the agent about sensitivity and audit side-effects. However, it does not cover error behavior, return format, or permissions, leaving some gaps.

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: the first states purpose, the second adds a crucial caveat. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, with zero filler or redundant details.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does and the important PHI/audit context. It could be improved by noting return format or error behavior, but given the low complexity, it is adequate.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema already provides full coverage (100%) with a clear description for note_id ('The IntakeQ note ID'). The tool description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('clinical note'), and scope ('by ID'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_notes (list vs. single) and other get_* tools (note vs. form/invoice/client).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'by ID' implies the tool should be used when the caller already has a note ID, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus list_notes or other getters, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives.

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