Medplum MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'searches' but doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any limitations like rate limits or authentication needs. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the resource and key criteria.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a search operation with 3 optional parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and result handling. For a search tool in a FHIR context, more information on filtering logic or result structure would improve completeness.

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 documents all three parameters with descriptions and an enum for 'status'. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'criteria like patient ID or status', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional syntax, examples, or context beyond what's structured. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles most documentation.

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 ('searches') and resource ('episodes of care'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'getEpisodeOfCareById' by indicating a search operation rather than a direct retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search tools like 'searchPatients' or 'generalFhirSearch', which slightly limits specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions criteria like patient ID or status but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to sibling tools such as 'generalFhirSearch' or 'getEpisodeOfCareById'. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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