Fetch a public therapist profile and save or refresh it in your private shortlist, preserving existing notes and status unless new notes are provided.
Fetch a public profile and save/refresh it in the private shortlist. Existing notes/status are preserved unless notes are provided.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| profile | Yes |
| 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 the operation is non-destructive and not read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing merge semantics: existing notes/status survive the call unless notes are supplied. It omits permission/auth requirements and any mention that notes overwrite rather than append.
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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the preservation caveat second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the merge behavior is covered. What is missing for a write-style shortlist operation is the identity/format of the required 'profile' argument and whether the call is idempotent on repeat saves.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain the effect of supplying 'notes' (overwrites the preserved value), but says nothing about 'profile' — whether it is a URL, slug, or opaque ID — which is the single required parameter.
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 names a concrete verb pair (fetch + save/refresh) and the target resource (the private shortlist), which separates it from a plain read such as get_therapist or search_therapists. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer (e.g., update_saved_therapist for an already-saved entry), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 implicit use case is 'save a public profile into the shortlist', but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_therapist, update_saved_therapist, or delete_saved_therapist, and no stated prerequisites. The merge rule hints at usage context but is not framed as guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.