cliniko_list_treatment_notesList treatment notes, optionally filtered by patient. NOTE: treatment notes are protected health information (PHI) — handle with care. Read-only. GET /treatment_notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-based). Default 1. | |
| per_page | No | Results per page (max 100). Default 50. | |
| patient_id | No | Filter by patient id (q[]=patient_id:=). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and the HTTP method. More importantly, it adds a crucial behavioral warning that treatment notes are PHI and should be handled with care—valuable context beyond the structured annotations.
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?
The description is three short sentences with no wasted words. The core action and optional filter are front-loaded, followed by a meaningful PHI warning and endpoint confirmation.
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 definition is complete for a simple read-only list operation: what it lists, optional filtering, safety profile, and PHI sensitivity are all covered. Pagination parameters are fully described in the schema, though the absence of an output schema means a brief note on the return shape would have been slightly more complete.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description only restates the patient filter concept without adding format or syntax details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('treatment notes'), and immediately notes the optional patient filter. This clearly distinguishes it from single-resource siblings like get_treatment_note and from other list tools by resource type.
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 description gives clear context: this is for listing treatment notes with an optional patient filter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the list-vs-get distinction is strongly implied by the wording and sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource-action pair such as patients, appointments, invoices, treatment notes, or availability. Even the two availability tools are clearly separated by description: list_available_times returns multiple slots while next_available_time returns one.
Tools consistently use the cliniko_ prefix with get_, list_, or create_ verbs before a resource name. The only notable deviation is cliniko_next_available_time, which lacks an explicit verb, but the overall pattern remains predictable and easy to navigate.
At 17 tools, the server is on the higher end but still reasonable for a practice-management API covering account info, businesses, practitioners, patients, appointments, invoices, treatment notes, products, and availability. Each tool maps to a meaningful endpoint, though next_available_time could be seen as partially redundant with list_available_times.
The core booking workflow is covered well: clients can look up availability and create appointments, and patient lookup is supported. However, there are no update, delete, or cancel operations for appointments or patients, and invoices and treatment notes are read-only, leaving notable lifecycle gaps.