List sessions for an organization with filters by provider, client, service, status, and date range. Supports cursor-based pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| apiKey | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| dateTo | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| orderBy | No | ||
| orgSlug | Yes | ||
| clientId | No | ||
| dateFrom | No | ||
| serviceId | No | ||
| providerId | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses cursor-based pagination, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it does not mention authentication (apiKey), required orgSlug, default ordering, or potential error behavior. It adds some transparency but leaves significant gaps.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by filter and pagination details. No redundant information; every word earns its place.
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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It omits required parameter orgSlug, return format, default sort order, and parameter value formats. While it covers filters and pagination, it is insufficient for a tool with such high complexity.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by naming filter dimensions (provider, client, service, status, date range) and pagination. However, it omits several parameters like orgSlug, limit, cursor, orderBy, and apiKey, so it only partially explains the parameter space.
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's function: 'List sessions for an organization' with specific filter dimensions (provider, client, service, status, date range). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like booking_get (single booking), booking_list_requests (requests), and scheduling_book (creation).
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 implies usage when listing sessions with filters, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as booking_list_requests or provide exclusion criteria. The 'for an organization' context is clear, but no explicit guidance or alternative references are given.
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.