Create recurring sessions (e.g. weekly therapy). Generates multiple individual sessions linked by a recurrence series ID. Max 52 occurrences.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| apiKey | No | ||
| confirm | Yes | ||
| orgSlug | Yes | ||
| clientId | Yes | ||
| timezone | Yes | ||
| serviceId | No | ||
| providerId | Yes | ||
| recurrence | Yes | ||
| skipConflicts | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it generates multiple sessions, links them via a series ID, and caps at 52 occurrences. This goes beyond the basic 'create' action, though it omits details like confirmation or conflict 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?
Two concise, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. The primary action is first, and the second sentence adds value without wasting words.
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 complex nested schema (10 parameters, recurrence object, no output schema), the description is far too high-level. It lacks parameter semantics, behavior on conflicts, confirmation requirements, and return format, making it insufficient for correct 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of any of the 10 parameters (e.g., orgSlug, clientId, recurrence, timezone, confirm). It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 creates recurring sessions, gives a specific example ('weekly therapy'), and distinguishes it from single-booking siblings like booking_create by explaining it generates multiple linked sessions with a recurrence series ID.
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?
It conveys that this is for creating recurring sessions, with a relevant example, and implies it's for multi-occurrence bookings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.
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.