Create a client monthly closing (immutable financial snapshot). Requires historialCompleto=true on the client. One closing per client per period. Requires confirm: true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notas | No | ||
| apiKey | No | ||
| confirm | Yes | ||
| orgSlug | Yes | ||
| periodo | Yes | ||
| clientId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful behavior context such as 'immutable financial snapshot' (result is immutable) and the uniqueness constraint. It does not disclose error behavior, permission requirements, or return format, so it's partial.
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 four short sentences, each adding value: purpose, prerequisite, constraint, and confirm requirement. It is front-loaded and free of 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?
The description covers the core purpose, key prerequisites, and a critical constraint, but lacks details on return values, error handling, and the significance of the immutable snapshot in practice. Given the financial nature and no output schema, more would be helpful, though the essential invocation criteria are present.
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 interprets 'confirm' ('Requires confirm: true') and 'periodo' ('per period'), but leaves orgSlug, clientId, notas, and apiKey unaddressed, providing limited added value beyond the schema.
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 'Create a client monthly closing' with the clarifying parenthetical 'immutable financial snapshot,' specifying the verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cierre_listar_clientes (list) and cierre_eliminar_cliente (delete).
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 context for when to use the tool by specifying prerequisites ('Requires historialCompleto=true on the client') and a unique constraint ('One closing per client per period'). It also notes the confirm parameter requirement. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.
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.