Reschedule a session to a new time (Servicialo spec). Cancels the original session and creates a new one at the specified datetime. Requires confirm: true and X-Org-Api-Key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | ||
| confirm | Yes | ||
| orgSlug | Yes | ||
| session_id | Yes | ||
| new_datetime | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly states the destructive nature of the operation ('Cancels the original session and creates a new one') and the mandatory confirmation and API key requirement, which is valuable context beyond the schema.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes key behavioral details without any fluff. Every sentence contributes valuable information, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.
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 description gives a solid high-level overview, but the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so more detail is expected. It lacks parameter formats, error conditions, and return-value behavior, making it adequate but not fully complete for an agent to invoke without additional inference.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'new_datetime' (the new time), 'confirm' (must be true), and indirectly for 'apiKey' (X-Org-Api-Key). However, it does not explain 'orgSlug' or 'session_id' beyond what their names imply, nor does it detail the datetime format, leaving some ambiguity.
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 session to a new time' and specifies the behavior of canceling the original session and creating a new one. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like booking_reschedule or public_booking_reschedule, despite the different naming.
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 prerequisites ('Requires confirm: true and X-Org-Api-Key') but does not offer guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling scheduling/booking tools. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name alone.
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.