intakeq-mcp

list_notes

Retrieve clinical notes with filters for client, status, and date range. PHI-protected and audit-logged for HIPAA compliance.

Instructions

List clinical notes. PHI — every call is audit-logged. Notes are read-only in IntakeQ.

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_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number (1-based)
`client`	No	Filter by client name or email
`status`	No	Filter by note status
`endDate`	No	End date filter (YYYY-MM-DD)
`clientId`	No	Filter by client ID
`startDate`	No	Start date filter (YYYY-MM-DD)
`updatedSince`	No	Filter by last updated date (YYYY-MM-DD)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that calls are audit-logged due to PHI and that notes are read-only, which are important behavioral traits. It does not mention pagination behavior or return shape, but the schema covers pagination via the page parameter.

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 three concise sentences, each providing distinct value: the action, the PHI/audit warning, and the read-only nature. There is no redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has 7 optional parameters and no output schema, so the description should provide enough context to understand the tool's role. It gives key behavioral warnings but does not explain filtering options or response format, though the schema covers parameters. It is minimally sufficient but lacks guidance on use cases.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no extra semantics about parameters like date formats or filtering behavior beyond what is in the schema, thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The phrase 'List clinical notes' clearly states the action and resource, and it is distinct from the sibling tool 'get_note' which presumably retrieves a single note. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives or mention the filtering capabilities covered by the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of get_note or other listing tools. It only says what it does, not under what circumstances it is preferred.

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