Confirm a booking (Servicialo spec). Dual-mode: (1) with credential — uses the confirmation token from scheduling_book, no API key needed; (2) with booking_id — uses API key to confirm an existing session. Returns confirmed status with timestamp.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | ||
| orgSlug | Yes | ||
| booking_id | No | ||
| credential | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication requirements (API key vs credential token), the source of the credential (scheduling_book), and the return value (confirmed status with timestamp). This is decently transparent, though it doesn't elaborate on side effects or failure modes.
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?
Two tightly packed sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded purpose, followed by mode clarifications. Every word earns its place.
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 confirm operation with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the key aspects: modes, auth, and return value. It could mention required parameters (orgSlug) and potential interactions with sibling tools like public_booking_confirm, but overall it's sufficient for basic invocation.
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 explains the role of 'credential' and 'booking_id', and implies 'apiKey' usage, but does not explicitly explain 'orgSlug' (which is required) or the exact parameter names. This adds meaning but leaves gaps for a fully unassisted agent.
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?
Description clearly states the tool confirms a booking, with a direct verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself by explicitly describing dual-mode operation (credential vs booking_id), setting it apart from sibling tools like scheduling_cancel or public_booking_confirm.
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 on when to use each mode: with a credential from scheduling_book (no API key) or with a booking_id and API key. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the mode breakdown serves as practical guidance.
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.