Distribute profits for a closed period. Freezes the current period and all prior open periods. Requires the period to be organizationally closed first. Requires confirm: true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | ||
| confirm | Yes | ||
| orgSlug | Yes | ||
| periodo | Yes | ||
| montoDistribuido | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions a significant side effect: 'Freezes the current period and all prior open periods,' and implies destructiveness via 'Requires confirm: true.' However, it omits reversibility, error conditions, or authorization requirements, leaving some gaps for a mutation operation.
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?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by prerequisites and required confirmation. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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 tool with no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, a key side effect, and confirmation requirement. However, it leaves several parameters (orgSlug, apiKey, montoDistribuido) without detailed explanation and does not mention return values or error behavior, making it adequate 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 adds meaning to 'periodo' (must be organizationally closed) and 'confirm' (must be true). 'montoDistribuido' is implied by 'profits,' but orgSlug and apiKey are unexplained. Partial coverage, so a mid-range score is appropriate.
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 ('Distribute profits') and the context ('for a closed period'), making it distinct from sibling tools like cierre_cerrar_org (closing the organization) and cierre_listar_utilidades (listing profits). It gives a specific verb+resource with additional scope.
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 an explicit prerequisite: 'Requires the period to be organizationally closed first.' It also states the need for confirm:true, which is a usage condition. It doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use, but the prerequisite is valuable guidance.
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.