openemr-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description fails to specify return format, pagination behavior, or what constitutes a 'drug safety flag' (e.g., allergies, contraindications) in this clinical context.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the action verb, contains zero redundant words, and efficiently communicates both the core function and the optional filtering capability. Every word 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?

Given the straightforward list operation and excellent schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema provided, the description could have improved completeness by briefly describing what the list contains (e.g., safety alerts, severity levels) rather than relying solely on the parameter schema.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the patient context and optional filtering capability, but does not add semantic depth beyond the schema (e.g., clinical meaning of 'under_review' status or expected patient_id format).

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 uses specific verb 'List' with clear resource 'drug safety flags' and scope 'for a patient'. It effectively distinguishes from CRUD siblings (create/update/delete) via the action word and from openemr_medication_list by specifying 'safety flags' rather than medications.

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 'optionally filtered by status', implying when to use the status_filter parameter. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus openemr_drug_interaction_check or openemr_medication_list, or how it relates to the other drug_safety_flag CRUD operations.

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