clients_trending_troubleIdentify clients whose health score falls below a threshold, ranked worst first with reasons, so you can prioritize at-risk accounts.
Clients whose health score is below the threshold (default 80), worst first, with the reasons.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | No | Report date (YYYY-MM-DD). Defaults to today (demo mode: 2026-09-30). | |
| threshold | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail — result ordering and inclusion of reasons — but says nothing about result caps, pagination, or what a 'reason' consists of.
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?
A single tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the filter condition and following immediately with ordering and payload. Every clause carries information.
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-filter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the selection rule, default, ordering, and payload. Only the omission of any result-size or time-scope caveat keeps it from being fully complete.
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 only 50% (as_of is documented, threshold is not), and the description compensates by defining the threshold's meaning and its default of 80. The sort semantics ('worst first') also add interpretation the schema cannot express, though as_of is never mentioned in prose.
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?
States a specific output: clients with health score below a threshold, sorted worst-first, with reasons included. An agent can tell this is an at-risk-client listing rather than a general health lookup. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling client_health tool.
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 the use case (surfacing clients trending toward trouble) but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. With siblings like client_health and practice_dashboard present, an agent is left to infer which one to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.