Update provider data: status, commission, coverage areas, permissions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| phone | No | ||
| apiKey | No | ||
| orgSlug | Yes | ||
| isActive | No | ||
| lastName | No | ||
| providerId | Yes | ||
| comunasCobertura | No | ||
| defaultCommission | No | ||
| canManageOwnServices | No | ||
| canManageOwnAvailability | 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 full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention semantics like partial vs. full update, required permissions, idempotency, or side effects. The description is purely declarative ('Update provider data') without explaining what happens on execution.
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 sentence with a clean structure: verb + object + a colon-separated list of updatable aspects. It avoids fluff and is easy to parse, though it could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose.
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 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain return values, required identifiers, or the nature of the update operation (e.g., partial update vs. full replacement). The description is inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without further inference.
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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It maps a few concepts (status, commission, coverage areas, permissions) to likely schema properties (isActive, defaultCommission, comunasCobertura, canManageOwnServices/CanManageOwnAvailability), but it fails to explain the required identifiers (orgSlug, providerId) and other params like name, phone, apiKey, isActive. This partial coverage does not adequately compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 identifies the action ('Update provider data') and lists specific fields (status, commission, coverage areas, permissions), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like provider_create or admin_toggle_discoverable, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.
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 this tool is used when updating provider data, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives, nor any exclusions (e.g., 'for creating providers, use provider_create'). The usage context is only inferred from the verb 'Update' and the resource.
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.