Create a service sale (venta) for a client. Optionally auto-creates a charge (cobro) depending on org configuration. Requires confirm: true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | ||
| estado | No | ||
| precio | Yes | ||
| confirm | Yes | ||
| orgSlug | Yes | ||
| cantidad | No | ||
| clientId | Yes | ||
| fechaRef | No | ||
| servicioId | Yes | ||
| proveedorId | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key side effect (auto-creating a cobro) and a critical precondition (confirm must be true), but it does not explain what happens when confirm is false, permission requirements, reversibility, or return behavior, leaving notable gaps.
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, with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (10 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It covers the core action and one side effect, but omits essential guidance on parameters and operational context, making it difficult for an agent to invoke correctly without additional knowledge.
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, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only mentions confirm, leaving orgSlug, clientId, servicioId, precio, cantidad, estado, fechaRef, proveedorId, and apiKey completely unexplained. This is severely insufficient for a 10-parameter tool.
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 creates a service sale (venta) for a client, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like finance_create_cobro by mentioning the optional auto-creation of a charge, making its scope unambiguous.
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 usage context: use this tool to create a service sale, with the note that a charge may be auto-created based on org configuration. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the auto-charge note provides enough contextual differentiation from finance_create_cobro.
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.