openemr-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention what the search returns (e.g., list of providers with which fields), pagination behavior, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral 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 of nine words with no redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb and wastes no space, though extreme brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 simplicity (2 optional parameters, no nested objects) and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema provided, the description should ideally explain what provider information is returned, which it omits.

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, the schema already documents both parameters with examples ('Cardiology', 'City or facility name'). The description adds minimal value beyond confirming the 'and/or' relationship, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas but not adding syntax details or validation rules.

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 'Search' and resource 'healthcare providers', clearly indicating the tool's function. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'openemr_patient_search', though the distinction between 'providers' and 'patients' is somewhat implicit in the naming.

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 phrase 'by specialty and/or location' implies parameter flexibility (either or both can be used), which provides basic usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'openemr_patient_search' or prerequisites for use.

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