Delete a public agenda permanently. Cascades to related sessions booked through this agenda, comments, and service configs. Requires confirm: true. Cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | ||
| confirm | Yes | ||
| orgSlug | Yes | ||
| agendaId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses the destructive nature (permanent deletion), the cascade effects on related sessions/comments/service configs, the confirm requirement, and irreversibility. This goes beyond simple 'delete' and gives the agent essential safety information.
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 sentences, each carrying a distinct piece of information: action and permanence, cascading effects, and confirm requirement plus irreversibility. There is no filler or redundancy; perfect conciseness for the needed detail.
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?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description covers the essential aspects: what is deleted, the extent of deletion (cascade), the required confirmation flag, and irreversibility. It provides enough context for an agent to safely invoke the tool.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds semantic value for 'confirm' (requires true) and 'agendaId' (cascade effects on related data), but it does not clarify 'orgSlug', 'agendaId' identification, or 'apiKey' usage. The compensation is partial, so a mid-range score 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 uses the specific verb 'Delete' with the resource 'public agenda', explicitly states 'permanently' and 'Cannot be undone', which clearly distinguishes this destructive action from sibling tools like agendas_update or agendas_get. The scope is unambiguous.
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 clear operational context: requires confirm: true, cascades to related sessions/comments/service configs, and is irreversible. This effectively implies when to use it (only when permanent deletion is intended) but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use exclusions, so it falls slightly short of full usage guidance.
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.