Create a manual charge (cobro) for a client. Not linked to a sale/venta. Requires confirm: true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tipo | No | ||
| fecha | No | ||
| monto | Yes | ||
| apiKey | No | ||
| confirm | Yes | ||
| orgSlug | Yes | ||
| clientId | Yes | ||
| descripcion | Yes | ||
| idempotencyKey | 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the requirement that 'confirm' must be true and clarifies that the charge is not linked to a sale. However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as side effects on client balances, idempotency, or authentication requirements, leaving significant ambiguity for a financial write 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?
The description is three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a key differentiator and a required flag. Every sentence contributes information with no wasted words.
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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides only minimal guidance. It lacks information about return values, error conditions, prerequisites, or the meaning of optional fields, making it incomplete for a complex financial operation.
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 9 parameters with 0% coverage from descriptions. The description only addresses 'confirm' (requires true), leaving orgSlug, clientId, monto, descripcion, and others unexplained. Field names provide some hints but are insufficient for an agent to construct valid calls, especially for optional parameters like tipo, fecha, apiKey, and idempotencyKey.
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 uses a specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource as a 'manual charge (cobro) for a client.' It further distinguishes from sale-linked transactions by stating 'Not linked to a sale/venta,' which clearly differentiates it from finance_create_venta and other billing tools.
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 usage context by clarifying this tool is for manual charges not linked to sales, which helps select among finance_create_venta and other billing tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or mention when not to use it beyond the sale exclusion, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
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.