Get details of a public booking using the bookingToken returned by public_booking_create. Returns status, scheduled time, service, and requester info. Does NOT require an API key — the booking token is the credential. Only returns public-safe data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgSlug | Yes | ||
| bookingToken | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication model (booking token is the credential, no API key), the read-only nature ('Get details'), and the data scope ('only returns public-safe data'). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema and name, though it does not mention error cases or token expiration.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action and resource. Each sentence earns its place: what it does, what it returns, and the notable auth/security context. No fluff or repetition.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, return fields, and auth model. However, the required orgSlug parameter is completely unexplained, leaving a meaningful gap in the tool's usage context. The description is useful 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%, so the description must explain parameter meaning. It clearly explains bookingToken (returned by public_booking_create, acts as credential) but does not explain orgSlug at all. Since one of two required parameters is left undefined, the description only partially compensates for the missing 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 states the tool gets details of a public booking using the bookingToken, listing specific returned fields (status, scheduled time, service, requester info). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like public_booking_cancel, public_booking_confirm, and public_booking_reschedule by focusing on retrieval, and from booking_get by emphasizing the public/token-based nature.
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 context: use the bookingToken returned by public_booking_create and no API key is needed. It implies when to use this tool (public booking flows) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This is clear context without exclusions, matching a 4.
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.