Close the organizational period. Requires ALL active clients with historialCompleto=true to be closed first. Freezes the period. Requires confirm: true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | ||
| confirm | Yes | ||
| orgSlug | Yes | ||
| periodo | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that the operation 'Freezes the period,' which implies irreversibility, and states the confirm requirement. However, it doesn't elaborate on potential side effects beyond freezing or error behavior if preconditions aren't met.
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 a single, information-dense sentence that covers purpose, precondition, and confirm requirement without waste. Every clause adds value and is front-loaded with the primary action.
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?
The description provides core context (action, precondition, freeze, confirm) but misses details about the meaning of 'orgSlug' and 'periodo,' and doesn't state what the response contains (no output schema). It's adequate for a simple close operation but not fully complete.
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 only explains 'confirm' (must be true). It does not clarify 'orgSlug' or 'periodo,' which are core parameters. 'apiKey' is self-explanatory, but the lack of explanation for two required parameters is a significant 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 action 'Close the organizational period' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cierre_crear_cliente or cierre_listar_clientes by focusing on closing the period, though it doesn't explicitly compare to those alternatives.
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 explicit preconditions: 'Requires ALL active clients with historialCompleto=true to be closed first' and 'Requires confirm: true.' This helps the agent know when to invoke the tool, but it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving a slight gap.
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.