Replace the weekly availability schedule for a provider (not additive — overwrites all existing blocks). Get providerId from admin_list_providers first. Schedule uses day names and HH:MM times. Requires X-Org-Api-Key header.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | ||
| orgSlug | Yes | ||
| schedule | Yes | ||
| providerId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It explicitly warns that the operation overwrites all existing blocks, which is the key destructive trait, and also mentions the required header and time format. This is strong disclosure for a mutation tool, though it could mention irreversibility or error handling.
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?
Three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: main action with critical caveat, prerequisite, and format/auth details. Front-loaded and no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the destructive behavior, input format, auth requirement, and how to obtain providerId. It could mention the return value or error scenarios, but for a setter tool, the essential context is present. The sibling availability_get_provider_schedule exists, but a cross-reference is not strictly necessary.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the schedule format ('day names and HH:MM times') and mentions that providerId comes from admin_list_providers. It also implies the apiKey is the X-Org-Api-Key header. However, orgSlug is not explained, and the description does not fully cover all parameter meanings, leaving a gap.
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 replaces the weekly availability schedule for a provider, with a specific verb ('Replace') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'not additive — overwrites all existing blocks,' which is a key differentiator from merely adding or updating availability.
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 provides usage guidance by stating to get providerId from admin_list_providers first, and it clarifies when to use this tool by noting it overwrites rather than adds. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to understand when this tool is appropriate.
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.