openemr-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and usefully discloses the return structure ('ID, DOB, sex, and city') since no output schema exists. However, it omits pagination behavior, result limits, and whether matching is fuzzy or exact.

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 efficient sentences with zero waste: first establishes the action, second describes the return payload. Information is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 single-parameter search tool without output schema, the description adequately covers the essential contract: input requirement and return fields. It could be improved by noting result limits or partial matching behavior, but the core functionality is documented.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the 'query' parameter ('Patient name or partial name to search for'), the schema sufficiently documents semantics. The description aligns by mentioning 'by name' but adds no additional syntax details or examples beyond the schema.

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 provides a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('OpenEMR patients'), and scope ('by name'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like openemr_provider_search and openemr_drug_safety_flag_list.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description (patient vs. provider context), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus openemr_provider_search or prerequisites like required permissions.

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