List charges (cobros) for an organization. Filter by client, status, or date range. Includes summary totals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| apiKey | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| dateTo | No | ||
| estado | No | ||
| orgSlug | Yes | ||
| clientId | No | ||
| dateFrom | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some context by stating the tool supports client/status/date filtering and includes summary totals, but it omits pagination behavior, auth requirements, ordering, and any details about the returned summary totals.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place.
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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits important context such as pagination via cursor/limit, supported status values, date format expectations, the shape of summary totals, and how this tool differs from other finance_* list tools.
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 only vaguely references filters by client, status, and date range, which maps to some parameters (clientId, estado, dateFrom/dateTo). It does not explain limit, cursor, apiKey, or orgSlug semantics, leaving most of the 8 parameters undocumented in prose.
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 ('List') and resource ('charges (cobros)') and scopes it to an organization. It is clear and distinct in meaning, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like finance_list_payments or finance_list_invoices.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as finance_list_payments, finance_list_ventas, or finance_list_invoices. There are no explicit use cases, exclusions, or context to help an agent select this specific list tool among its siblings.
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.