Breakdown of Servicio Coordinado (SC) events by month and resolver path (backfill, cac-native, live, compensalo). Use to validate SC coverage and monitor live SC resolution growth. Key metric: sc_live shows SCs resolved in production (not backfill).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | ||
| orgSlug | Yes | ||
| periodo | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the meaning of the key metric sc_live (production-resolved SCs vs backfill), which is useful. However, it does not mention any side effects, return format, or that this is a read-only report, though that is implied by the report nature.
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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It avoids unnecessary detail while including the key metric clarification.
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 report tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, this description provides the purpose and a key metric definition, but leaves the agent without enough detail on how to invoke it. Missing parameter semantics and output structure make it incomplete for reliable use.
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%, and the description does not explain any of the parameters (apiKey, orgSlug, periodo). The mention of 'by month' hints at time granularity but never connects it to the 'periodo' parameter, so agents cannot infer how to set parameters correctly.
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 tool as a breakdown of Servicio Coordinado (SC) events by month and resolver path, naming specific resolver dimensions (backfill, cac-native, live, compensalo). This distinguishes it from sibling report tools like report_revenue or report_occupancy.
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?
It explicitly states two use cases: validating SC coverage and monitoring live SC resolution growth. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.
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.