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 of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal details. It does not explain error handling (e.g., patient not found, no questionnaire history), data granularity, or whether the trajectory includes raw scores versus trend analysis.

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 front-loads the action ('Return') and immediately specifies the resource type. There is no redundant or wasted text; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 simple 3-parameter schema with full coverage and no nested objects, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema or annotations, the description could better specify the return format (e.g., time-series data points, score interpretations) to be fully complete.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'PHQ-9' which provides helpful context for the 'instrument' parameter, but does not add syntax details, validation rules, or format specifics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 tool returns 'longitudinal questionnaire score trajectories' and specifies the patient context. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like openemr_vital_trends and openemr_lab_trends by specifying 'questionnaire' as the data type, though it does not explicitly contrast with openemr_health_trajectory.

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 such as openemr_health_trajectory or openemr_vital_trends. While the PHQ-9 example suggests a mental health screening use case, there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use directives.

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