openemr-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Longitudinal' implies time-series data, but description lacks details on return format, privacy considerations for patient data, or behavior when no history exists.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb, no redundant words. Parenthetical examples are efficient and informative.

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?

Missing output schema means description should ideally characterize the return structure (e.g., time-series format). As a read-only data retrieval tool with 3 parameters, it is minimally adequate but has gaps regarding result interpretation.

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 has 100% description coverage. Description lists specific metrics (weight, BP systolic/diastolic) that mirror the enum values in the schema, providing helpful reinforcement. With schema doing the heavy lifting, this meets the baseline.

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 specific action (Return) and resource (longitudinal vital sign trajectories), with parenthetical examples (weight, BP) that distinguish it from sibling tools like lab_trends or questionnaire_trends. Could explicitly contrast with openemr_health_trajectory for 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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like openemr_health_trajectory or openemr_lab_trends. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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