Medplum MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or the format of the response. For a write operation in a healthcare context, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating requirements from the action statement for better readability.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema in a complex healthcare domain, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what an 'encounter' entails beyond 'patient visit', doesn't mention relationships to sibling tools, and provides minimal behavioral context despite the critical nature of medical data creation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description only mentions 'patient ID and status' as required, which adds minimal value beyond the schema's required array and parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Creates') and resource ('new encounter (patient visit)'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'createPatient' or 'createEpisodeOfCare' beyond mentioning 'encounter' specifically.

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 mentions 'Requires patient ID and status' which hints at prerequisites, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'createEpisodeOfCare' or 'updateEncounter', nor does it specify exclusions or contextual triggers for usage.

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