Get complete details of a public agenda by ID. Returns all configuration including booking flow (service_first, provider_first, auto), selection modes, assignment strategy, privacy settings, linked provider/service, and session count. Use before agendas_update to inspect current settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | ||
| orgSlug | Yes | ||
| agendaId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and enumerates return content: booking flow, selection modes, assignment strategy, privacy settings, linked provider/service, and session count. It clearly labels the agenda as 'public' but does not address auth failures or error behavior, so it's not a perfect 5.
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?
Two sentence description, front-loads purpose in sentence one and packs return details plus usage advice in sentence two. No redundant filler.
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 simple get-by-ID tool, the description covers purpose, return payload highlights, and a usage context. Missing edge-case behavior (private agenda handling, 404 responses) but sufficient for basic invocation.
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 only parameter hint is 'by ID' suggesting agendaId; the description does not explain orgSlug or apiKey. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters, though the parameter names are fairly self-explanatory.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get complete details of a public agenda by ID.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling list/create/update tools by focusing on retrieval of a single agenda's full configuration.
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 states 'Use before agendas_update to inspect current settings,' providing a concrete workflow and differentiating from update. It also implies the tool is for single-agenda reads rather than listing via agendas_list, though it doesn't enumerate all exclusions.
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.