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, implying mutation, but doesn't address permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's insufficient for safe agent use.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that directly state the tool's function and requirements without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and follows with essential parameter information. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns a patient ID, confirmation message), error conditions, or system constraints. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking, especially given the tool's potential impact.

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%, providing complete parameter documentation in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value by listing three required parameters (firstName, lastName, birthDate) but doesn't explain the optional gender parameter or provide additional context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage, but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 patient resource'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the patient resource type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other creation tools like createCondition or createEncounter. The description is specific enough to identify the tool's function without being tautological.

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 usage context by listing required parameters, suggesting when this tool is appropriate (when you have patient data to create). However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like updatePatient or searchPatients, nor does it mention prerequisites beyond the required fields. The guidance is functional but lacks comparative context.

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