Book a session (Servicialo spec). Returns confirmation_credential (opaque token, valid 30 min) and booking_id. Use scheduling_confirm with the credential to finalize. Does NOT require an API key — uses requester identity (fullName + email or phone). Accepts optional submission context for audit trail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| orgSlug | Yes | ||
| datetime | Yes | ||
| requester | Yes | ||
| service_id | Yes | ||
| submission | No | ||
| provider_id | No | ||
| idempotencyKey | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool returns a confirmation_credential (opaque token, valid 30 min) and booking_id, and that the booking is not final until confirmed via scheduling_confirm. It also discloses the authentication model and optional audit-trail context. However, it does not mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens if confirmation is not completed, which would be valuable additional transparency.
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 earning its place. It front-loads the purpose, then provides return values, the follow-up step, auth requirements, and optional context. No wasted words.
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 has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must be relatively rich. While it explains the core two-phase flow and return tokens, it fails to detail most parameters, error scenarios, or implications of the 30-minute credential expiry. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.
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 compensate. It adds meaning for 'requester' by explaining it uses fullName + email or phone, and for 'submission' as audit context. However, it leaves other significant parameters such as orgSlug, service_id, datetime, provider_id, and idempotencyKey unexplained, making it insufficient for an agent to understand all required inputs.
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 books a session, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing the 'Servicialo spec' and the two-step confirmation flow with scheduling_confirm, which differentiates it from generic booking tools.
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 usage context by instructing to use scheduling_confirm with the returned credential to finalize the booking. It also notes that no API key is required, clarifying authentication expectations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like booking_create or public_booking_create, which are siblings, so it stops short of fully differentiating when to use this tool vs others.
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.