Update an existing client's personal data. Email cannot be changed via MCP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rut | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| phone | No | ||
| apiKey | No | ||
| comuna | No | ||
| orgSlug | Yes | ||
| clientId | Yes | ||
| lastName | No | ||
| direccion | No | ||
| proveedorTitularId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key constraint (email cannot be changed) but does not specify whether updates are partial or full replacements, required permissions, reversibility, or return format. Some value is added, but significant behavioral details are missing.
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 exactly two sentences: the first states the action, the second adds a constraint. There is zero fluff and the key information is front-loaded. It earns a high score for conciseness.
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 an update tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It only provides the intent and one limitation, leaving parameter semantics, update behavior, and usage context uncovered. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke it confidently.
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%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the 11 parameters. 'Personal data' is too generic to explain fields like rut, comuna, or direccion. The mention of email is not even a parameter in the schema, adding confusion rather than clarity.
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 ('Update an existing client's personal data') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like client_create (new clients) and client_get (retrieval). The additional note about email not being changeable adds useful 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 implies when to use the tool (updating existing clients) and explicitly excludes email changes. It does not name alternative tools, but 'existing' suggests using client_create for new clients. This is clear context but lacks explicit alternatives.
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.