Reschedule a public booking using the bookingToken. Cancels the original and creates a new pending_confirmation booking at the new time. Returns new confirmationToken and bookingToken. Only works for bookings in pending_confirmation, scheduled, or confirmed status. Does NOT require an API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgSlug | Yes | ||
| newStartAt | Yes | ||
| bookingToken | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses side effects: 'Cancels the original and creates a new pending_confirmation booking at the new time.' It also mentions return values (new confirmationToken and bookingToken), status restrictions, and auth requirements—far beyond what annotations would provide.
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 primary purpose, and every sentence adds essential information—no fluff, no 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?
Given three simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers behavior, return values, status constraints, and auth requirements. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.
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 descriptions, and the tool description mentions bookingToken and 'new time' (newStartAt) explicitly, but does not explain orgSlug at all. Since orgSlug is required and not self-evident in context, this is a gap in parameter semantics.
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: 'Reschedule a public booking using the bookingToken.' It specifies the verb (reschedule), resource (public booking), and method (using bookingToken), and distinguishes it from siblings like booking_reschedule by emphasizing 'public' and the token-based workflow.
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 for when the tool is applicable: 'Only works for bookings in pending_confirmation, scheduled, or confirmed status.' This is an explicit exclusion condition, though it does not name alternatives. It also notes that no API key is required, adding operational context.
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.