List sales (ventas) for an organization. Filter by client, service, provider, or status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| apiKey | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| dateTo | No | ||
| estado | No | ||
| orgSlug | Yes | ||
| clientId | No | ||
| dateFrom | No | ||
| servicioId | No | ||
| proveedorId | 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 must fully communicate behavioral traits. It does not disclose pagination behavior (limit, cursor), date-range filtering (dateFrom/dateTo), authentication requirements (apiKey), or the response structure. For a list tool, this lack of operational detail is a significant gap, leaving the agent to guess at common list semantics.
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 short sentences, front-loads the primary action ('List sales'), and includes only the essential filter details. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.
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 has 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits crucial context such as pagination, date filtering, authentication, and what the response contains. For a list tool of this complexity, the description does not adequately prepare an agent to use it correctly.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It maps four of ten parameters to conceptual filters (client → clientId, service → servicioId, provider → proveedorId, status → estado), which is helpful. However, it ignores limit, cursor, dateTo, dateFrom, apiKey, and orgSlug, so not all parameters are clarified. The mapping it provides earns a baseline pass, but the incomplete coverage prevents a higher score.
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 lists sales ('ventas') for an organization and lists specific filter dimensions (client, service, provider, status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like finance_list_cobros (collections) and finance_list_gastos (expenses), earning a perfect score.
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 the tool is for listing sales records and specifies available filters, giving clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool name and description are sufficiently distinct from siblings, so no exclusion is necessary.
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.