List publicly bookable services for an organization. Does NOT require an API key. Returns only active, discoverable services with assigned providers. Use this as the first step in the public booking flow to show available services to end users or agents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgSlug | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that no API key is required, which is critical auth information for agents. It also discloses a filtering behavior (only active, discoverable services with assigned providers). This goes beyond a bare 'list' statement, though it stops short of describing error handling or pagination.
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, each adding critical value: purpose, auth requirement, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), so the description covers the core invocation and purpose. However, it does not describe the output format or fields of the returned services, which would be needed for an agent to consume the result. Given the absence of an output schema, this is a notable gap.
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 provides no description for the only parameter (orgSlug), and the description does not explicitly explain it either. The phrase 'for an organization' implies the slug identifies the organization, but the meaning and format are left vague. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate more directly for this parameter.
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 identifies the action ('List') and resource ('publicly bookable services for an organization'). It also specifies the scope ('active, discoverable services with assigned providers') and distinguishes itself from sibling admin tools by noting it is public and requires no API key.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this as the first step in the public booking flow to show available services.' This provides clear context and sequencing. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for other contexts (e.g., admin service 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.