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. While 'creates' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on duplicate names, whether the operation is idempotent, what the return value contains, or any rate limits. It only mentions the name requirement, leaving 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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and a key requirement. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the second sentence could be more efficiently integrated, and there's room for slightly more detail without sacrificing conciseness.

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/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (what's returned, how to reference the new organization), doesn't mention error conditions, and provides minimal behavioral context. Given the complexity of creating a persistent resource in a FHIR system, more guidance is needed.

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 already fully documents both parameters (name and alias). The description only mentions the 'name' parameter requirement, adding minimal value beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't explain the meaning or use cases for aliases, nor provide context about name constraints or formatting.

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 verb ('creates') and resource ('new organization'), and provides examples of organization types (hospital, clinic). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on organization creation rather than other FHIR resources like patients or medications. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'updateOrganization' which modifies existing organizations.

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 that organization name is required, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'updateOrganization' or 'searchOrganizations'. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what happens after creation. The context is implied but not explicit.

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