Preview the financial snapshot for a client in a period WITHOUT creating the closing. Returns totals for ventas, cobros, pagos, sessions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | ||
| orgSlug | Yes | ||
| periodo | Yes | ||
| clientId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the operation is a preview and non-mutating ('WITHOUT creating the closing'), and it lists the returned totals. However, it does not mention permissions, error conditions, or behavior when data is missing, leaving moderate gaps in transparency.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the critical non-mutating qualifier. It lists the output totals concisely, with no wasted words or repetition.
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 tool has no output schema, no annotations, and incomplete parameter documentation. The description covers the basic action and return values but omits essential details like parameter formats, required authorization, or edge-case behavior. For an agent to use this tool correctly, it would need additional context that is not provided.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameter. It only implicitly maps 'client' and 'period' to clientId and periodo, leaving apiKey and orgSlug unexplained, and the format of 'periodo' is entirely unspecified. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema information.
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 purpose: to preview a financial snapshot for a client in a period without creating the closing. It specifies the exact outputs (totals for ventas, cobros, pagos, sessions), and the phrase 'WITHOUT creating the closing' distinguishes it from sibling closing operations like cierre_cerrar_org.
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: to preview the client's financial snapshot before performing a closing. It explicitly notes that it does NOT create the closing, implying a safe, read-only use case. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, which is why it doesn't reach a 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.