Get the full detail of a single treatment/care plan by id: diagnosis, objectives, notes, status timeline, expiration, the intake session, and all plan items (service, quantity, frequency, priority, sessions booked/completed). Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | ||
| planId | Yes | ||
| orgSlug | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly labels the operation as 'Read-only' and enumerates the returned components (diagnosis, objectives, notes, status timeline, expiration, intake session, plan items). This adds meaningful insight beyond the schema, though it omits edge-case behavior like not-found handling.
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 a single front-loaded sentence. It opens with the purpose, lists the specific return fields, and ends with 'Read-only.' Every element provides value, and there is no unnecessary fluff or repetition.
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 get-by-id tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the response content by enumerating all key fields. It also conveys the read-only nature, making the tool's behavior and expected result clear. No additional context seems necessary for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 'by id' for planId but leaves apiKey and orgSlug entirely unexplained. While the description's content list is useful, it does not clarify the purpose of most parameters, failing to fully compensate for the sparse schema.
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 action: 'Get the full detail of a single treatment/care plan by id' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'treatment_plans_list' by emphasizing 'single' and 'by id', making its scope unambiguous.
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: use this to retrieve one specific plan's full details by id. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state exclusions, but the 'single... by id' phrasing makes the intended use case obvious, meeting the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.
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.