List active providers (professionals) for an organization. Use this to get providerId before calling admin_set_availability. The org owner is auto-provisioned as a provider. Requires X-Org-Api-Key header.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | ||
| orgSlug | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and adds value by disclosing the auth header requirement and the auto-provisioning behavior of the org owner. It could mention pagination or response shape, but for a read-only list operation it's reasonably transparent.
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 four compact sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage, behavioral nuance, and auth requirement. No fluff or redundancy.
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?
It covers purpose, usage, auth, and a relevant behavioral quirk, but lacks parameter-level clarity and doesn't describe the response fields (e.g., providerId) despite having no output schema. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 coverage is 0%, and the description only vaguely alludes to 'an organization' (implying orgSlug) without explaining the orgSlug parameter. The apiKey parameter is entirely unaddressed, especially in relation to the X-Org-Api-Key header.
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 clearly states the tool lists active providers (professionals) for an organization, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like provider_get by focusing on listing active providers for an org context.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use this to get providerId before calling admin_set_availability' and notes the required X-Org-Api-Key header. It gives clear context and prerequisites, though it doesn't mention when not to use it.
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.
Multiple parallel booking creation flows (booking_create, scheduling_book, public_booking_create) and session state transition tools (booking_update_status, lifecycle_transition) create ambiguity. While descriptions are detailed, an agent could easily select the wrong tool for a given task, especially with 111 tools to choose from.
Most tools follow a consistent domain_action pattern (e.g., client_create, service_update, comms_list_campaigns). Minor deviations include Spanish/English mixing (cierre_*, report_deuda_real) and a few noun-only names like org_summary, but the overall structure is predictable.
With 111 tools, the server is massively over-scoped for an MCP surface. Even for a broad service business domain, this exceeds reasonable limits and will overwhelm agents, making tool selection slower and more error-prone.
The tool surface is extremely thorough, covering org setup, services, providers, booking (internal/public/spec), finance, payroll, closing, disputes, clinical notes, treatment plans, and reporting. Gaps are rare and often intentional (e.g., no deliver via MCP, read-only treatment plans), so agents can complete most workflows end-to-end.