Confirm a pending public booking using the confirmationToken returned by public_booking_create. Advances the booking from pending_confirmation to scheduled. The token expires after 30 minutes. Does NOT require an API key. Rate-limited.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgSlug | Yes | ||
| confirmationToken | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the state transition, token expiry, that no API key is required, and that the tool is rate-limited. This is substantial behavioral information beyond the bare schema, though it does not cover response format or failure behavior.
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 efficient, with each sentence adding a distinct piece of information: purpose, state change, token expiry, auth requirement, and rate limiting. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no redundant or filler content.
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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the state transition, token lifecycle, auth, and rate limiting. It could mention that orgSlug should match the one used at booking creation, but that is a minor omission. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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 no property descriptions, so the description must explain parameters. It thoroughly explains confirmationToken (origin from public_booking_create and expiry). However, orgSlug is not mentioned at all. While orgSlug is somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not add clarity for that required parameter, leading to partial compensation for the 0% schema coverage.
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 purpose: confirming a pending public booking via a confirmation token. It specifies the verb 'Confirm' and the resource 'public booking', and goes further to describe the state transition from pending_confirmation to scheduled, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like public_booking_cancel or public_booking_reschedule.
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 states that the confirmationToken comes from public_booking_create, implying the tool should be used after creation. It also notes the 30-minute token expiry, signaling urgency. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when NOT to use this tool, but the context of public booking confirmation with a token is clear enough.
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.