Update organization profile fields: name, description, logo URL, or vertical. Only provided fields are updated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| apiKey | No | ||
| logoUrl | No | ||
| orgSlug | Yes | ||
| vertical | No | ||
| description | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It reveals that the update is partial (only provided fields are updated), which is important, but it does not mention authentication requirements (apiKey), return value, or error behavior. This is partially transparent.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence without redundant wording. It efficiently conveys the core action and key behavior.
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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and partial-update behavior but lacks details on authentication, response, and edge cases (e.g., setting fields to null). Given the schema's required orgSlug and apiKey, the description is not fully self-sufficient.
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 description enumerates the updatable fields (name, description, logoUrl, vertical), mapping to 4 of 6 schema properties. It omits orgSlug and apiKey, and with 0% schema description coverage, this leaves the required identifier and authentication parameter unexplained. It does add partial-update semantics, providing modest value.
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 the specific action 'Update' with resource 'organization profile' and enumerates the updatable fields (name, description, logo URL, vertical). This clearly distinguishes it from read tools like org_summary and other resource-specific update 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?
It states 'Only provided fields are updated,' which clarifies partial-update semantics, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The intended usage is implied but not fully elaborated.
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.