Cancel a public booking using the bookingToken. Only works for bookings in pending_confirmation, scheduled, or confirmed status. Optionally include a reason. Does NOT require an API key. The booking token scopes access to a single booking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | ||
| orgSlug | Yes | ||
| bookingToken | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals important traits: the restriction to certain statuses, the lack of API key requirement, and the token's scoping to a single booking. It does not mention reversibility or side effects, but the provided context goes beyond basic schema information.
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 four sentences, all informative and without fluff. It front-loads the action ('Cancel a public booking'), then succinctly provides status restrictions, optional reason, auth note, and token scoping. Every sentence 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?
The description covers purpose, token usage, statuses, auth, and optional reason, but lacks explanation of the required orgSlug parameter and any indication of return values or error behavior. Given no output schema, some description of expected result would improve completeness.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains bookingToken (required, scopes access) and reason (optional), but entirely omits orgSlug, which is a required parameter. This leaves a significant semantic gap for one of the three parameters.
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 verb 'Cancel' and the resource 'a public booking' using the bookingToken. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like booking_cancel and public_booking_confirm by specifying it operates on public bookings via a token, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 clear usage context by specifying that it only works for bookings in pending_confirmation, scheduled, or confirmed status, and that it does not require an API key while the token scopes access to a single booking. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the constraints imply when it should be used versus admin tools.
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.