Static source inference · medium confidence · detected: Logging
Deprecated protocol patterns detected
Summary
This MCP server has severe definition quality issues across all three tools. While all tools have basic descriptions and input schemas, they suffer from multiple critical problems: (1) Naming is non-standard and inconsistent, 'retrieve_data_date', 'retrieve_data_patient', 'retrieve_data_appointmentType' use redundant prefixes and mix naming conventions (snake_case vs camelCase in the last tool). None follow the standard verb_noun pattern. (2) Descriptions are generic and fail to distinguish tools from each other or explain WHEN to use each one vs alternatives. (3) Parameter descriptions are minimal and lack critical guidance on format, constraints, and dependencies. (4) No output schemas are documented, callers cannot know what fields to expect. (5) No error handling guidance. (6) Optional parameters are not properly distinguished from required ones. (7) The schema uses inconsistent parameter naming ('date_appointment_start'/'date_appointment_end' vs 'patient_name'/'patient_id' vs 'appointment_type'/'appointment_id'). The server appears functional for basic PostgreSQL reads, but lacks the rigor expected of production-grade tools.
No output schemas documented for any tool. LLMs cannot know what fields to expect in responses, forcing guesswork and follow-up lookups to extract required data.
Inconsistent and verbose naming. 'retrieve_data_*' prefix is redundant across all tools. Tool names do not follow verb_noun pattern (should be list_*, get_*, search_*). 'appointmentType' in one tool violates Python snake_case convention.
Parameter dependencies and mutual exclusivity not documented. retrieve_data_patient and retrieve_data_appointmentType each have two optional parameters (patient_name/patient_id, appointment_type/appointment_id) with no guidance on which to use or what happens if both are provided.
Expand tool descriptions to 150-250 characters each, clearly explaining WHEN to use each tool, what it returns, and how results differ. Example: 'Search for scheduled appointments within a date range. Returns appointment ID, patient name, type, and time slot. Use this to check availability or list a patient's upcoming visits.'
Document output schemas for all three tools. Specify which fields are always present (e.g., appointment_id, patient_name, appointment_date, start_time, end_time) and their types (string, date, time, integer).
Clarify parameter dependencies in descriptions. For retrieve_data_patient: 'Provide either patient_name (for substring search) OR patient_id (for exact match), not both. If both are provided, patient_id takes precedence.' Similarly for retrieve_data_appointmentType.
Improve parameter descriptions with format and constraint info. date_appointment_start: 'Start date in YYYY-MM-DD format (e.g. 2024-01-15). Required if using date range filtering.' date_appointment_end: 'End date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Must be >= start_date. Optional; if omitted, only appointments on start_date are returned.'
Add error handling guidance to tool descriptions. Example: 'Returns HTTP 400 if date format is invalid. Returns empty list if no appointments match. Returns HTTP 500 if database is unavailable, retry after 30 seconds.'
Spec posture evidence
Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.
Relies on Logging (deprecated) - log to stderr or use OpenTelemetry
Descriptions are generic and do not differentiate tools. All three descriptions are 57-68 characters and lack context on WHEN to use each tool vs alternatives. No guidance on query behavior (exact match, substring, range) or what results indicate.
Parameter descriptions lack critical format and constraint information. date_appointment_start/end do not clearly state YYYY-MM-DD is required. patient_name does not clarify if substring matching works. appointment_type matching logic is undefined.
No error handling guidance. Responses do not indicate how failures are communicated (404 for not found, 400 for bad input, timeout, etc.) or what the LLM should do next (retry, ask user, try alternative tool).
Parameter naming is verbose and inconsistent. 'date_appointment_start' / 'date_appointment_end' vs 'patient_name' / 'patient_id' vs 'appointment_type' / 'appointment_id' suggests no coherent naming strategy. LLMs struggle with inconsistent parameter names across tools.
Standardize parameter naming. Use 'start_date', 'end_date' instead of 'date_appointment_start', 'date_appointment_end'. Use 'patient_name', 'patient_id' (consistent). Use 'appointment_type_name', 'appointment_type_id' (explicit and consistent with patient params).
Consider consolidating retrieve_data_patient and retrieve_data_appointmentType into a single 'search_appointments' tool with an optional filter_by parameter (enum: patient, type, date) to avoid redundant tool proliferation and improve composability.
Add parameter validation and return clear error messages. If date_appointment_end < date_appointment_start, respond with 'Invalid date range: end_date must be >= start_date. You provided start_date=2024-01-15, end_date=2024-01-10.' not just 'Invalid input'.
Document what happens when limit is provided but exceeds database results. Clarify whether the tool returns a count/total_count or next_cursor for pagination guidance.