Fetch the OpenEMR 8.0.0 Users Guide table of contents to orient yourself before retrieving a specific section.
Fetch the table of contents from the OpenEMR 8.0.0 Users Guide. Use this to orient yourself before fetching a specific section.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden, but it only reveals that the tool returns a table of contents. It never states that the call is read-only, requires no authentication, or what the TOC entries look like. For a zero-parameter fetch this is a modest gap rather than a critical one.
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?
Two short sentences, purpose first, usage second, with no padding or restating of the tool name. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, which version of the guide, and how it fits into a workflow. Returning entries' shape or an indication that the TOC is static/versioned would close the remaining gap.
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?
The schema declares zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed.
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 verb and resource ('Fetch the table of contents') and pins the source to 'the OpenEMR 8.0.0 Users Guide', which separates it from the wiki and API-doc siblings. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with search_openemr_wiki or get_openemr_wiki_page, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
'Use this to orient yourself before fetching a specific section' gives clear sequencing guidance for when to call it. No alternative tool is named for the case where the agent already knows the section or doesn't need the guide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.