Review locally recorded appointments in chronological order, filter by profile, and optionally include cancelled sessions to track scheduling and follow-ups.
List locally recorded appointments in chronological order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile_id | No | ||
| include_cancelled | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail (chronological ordering, local data source), but omits a meaningful trait: the include_cancelled default of false means cancelled appointments are silently excluded unless requested.
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?
A single tight sentence with the scope and ordering front-loaded and no filler. It is not bloated, though it is arguably over-compressed given the undocumented parameters.
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?
The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is parameter meaning and usage context, which for a two-parameter list tool leaves an agent under-informed about filtering behavior.
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 0% and the description says nothing about either parameter. It never explains that profile_id scopes results to a profile or that include_cancelled defaults to false, so an agent gets no semantic meaning for the two knobs it must reason about.
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 a specific verb and resource ('List ... appointments') plus a distinguishing scope ('locally recorded') and ordering ('chronological order'). This separates it from siblings like record_appointment and update_appointment, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or the natural pairing with record_appointment. The agent must infer that this is the read-side counterpart to the mutation siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.