Query available time slots for public booking. Does NOT require an API key. Returns slots grouped by service from the organization's public agenda. Provider details are hidden — the system auto-assigns at booking time. Use after public_service_list to find bookable times.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | ||
| dateTo | No | ||
| orgSlug | Yes | ||
| dateFrom | No | ||
| timezone | No | ||
| serviceId | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that no API key is required, that provider details are hidden, and that the system auto-assigns providers at booking time. It does not mention pagination or error behavior, but the provided details meaningfully shape agent expectations.
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?
Three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds critical behavioral details and usage sequencing, all in a compact and readable format.
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?
The description covers the essential purpose, public context, and key constraints, but given 6 parameters with zero schema coverage and no output schema, it leaves gaps around date range handling, timezone behavior, and the exact return shape. It is adequate for a simple query tool but not fully complete.
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 none of the six parameters are explained in the description. The phrase 'grouped by service' hints at the relevance of serviceId, but date, timezone, and orgSlug semantics are left entirely to the schema, which only provides names. The description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
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's function: 'Query available time slots for public booking.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like availability_get_slots by emphasizing 'public', noting that no API key is required, and specifying that slots are grouped by service from the organization's public agenda.
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 explicit usage context: 'Use after public_service_list to find bookable times.' This indicates the intended sequence. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the private availability_get_slots or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full alternative-based guidance.
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.