OKC Disc & Sciatica Next-Step Checker | Precision Care Chiropractic

assess_next_step

Return a NON-DIAGNOSTIC next-step suggestion for lower back / sciatica / disc symptoms. Set redFlags=true if the person reports loss of bladder/bowel control, saddle numbness, foot drop, or rapidly worsening weakness.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`imaging`	No	Imaging/diagnosis history.
`concerns`	No	Care concerns (surgery fear, cost, veteran, decompression, first visit).
`redFlags`	No	True if any urgent red-flag symptom is present.
`symptoms`	No	Main symptom descriptions.
`radiation`	No	Where pain/numbness travels.
`worseWith`	No	Aggravating activities/positions.
`priorTreatments`	No	Treatments already tried.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key 'NON-DIAGNOSTIC' nature and enumerates red-flag symptoms, but it does not explain what happens when redFlags=true, what the returned suggestion looks like, or any limitations or safety disclaimers.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the critical red-flag instruction is placed immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The core purpose and one critical parameter are covered, but with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description leaves the return format and downstream use of the suggestion unspecified. It also does not position the tool relative to its siblings, so an agent gets limited workflow context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds value by specifying exactly which symptoms should trigger redFlags=true, going beyond the schema's generic 'urgent red-flag symptom' wording. Other parameters receive no additional elaboration, but the redFlags detail meaningfully improves invocation correctness.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Return'), a clear resource ('next-step suggestion'), and a precise scope ('lower back / sciatica / disc symptoms'). It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling education/article tools by emphasizing a non-diagnostic, action-oriented output.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The redFlags instruction gives clear situational guidance for setting that parameter, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like run_sciatica_information_check or get_education_article. Usage context is implied by the tool's name and scope rather than spelled out.

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

All OKC Disc & Sciatica Next-Step Checker | Precision Care Chiropractic tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

assess_next_step and run_sciatica_information_check are nearly indistinguishable: both accept lower-back/sciatica symptoms, screen for red flags, and return next-step information. The three education-article tools and clinic-info tool are distinct, but the main symptom-checking surface is ambiguous.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern like get_clinic_info, list_education_articles, and search_education_articles. However, assess_next_step and run_sciatica_information_check use inconsistent, verbose verbs and don't share a clear checker-naming convention.

Tool Count4/5

Six tools is a reasonable size for a server combining clinic information, education content, and patient next-step screening. The count isn't excessive, though one of the two overlapping checker tools could be removed without losing core functionality.

Completeness4/5

The set covers clinic details, education article retrieval/list/search, and symptom-based next-step screening, which matches the server's stated purpose. Minor gaps exist—such as no explicit appointment scheduling or separate urgent-care action—but the core workflow is workable.

Resources

Need Help?