List treatment/care plans of an organization with client, provider, status, objectives and their items (services with quantity/frequency/priority). Filter by clientId, status or proveedorId; paginated (page/limit). Read-only — plan creation/editing stays in the UI (requires clinical supervision).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| apiKey | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| orgSlug | Yes | ||
| clientId | No | ||
| proveedorId | 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 read-only behavior, the fields included in the response, and the available filters/pagination. It does not mention authentication or error handling, but these are less critical for a list operation.
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 sentences with no wasted words: the first states the action and included data, the second covers filters, pagination, and read-only constraints. Information is front-loaded and easy to scan.
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 list tool with no output schema and 7 parameters, the description adequately covers purpose, key filters, pagination, and the read-only restriction. It could specify response formats or error conditions, but those are not essential for a list operation.
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 compensates by explaining clientId, status, and proveedorId as filters, and page/limit as pagination. orgSlug is implied by 'organization'. apiKey is not explained, but it is a common auth parameter not critical to understanding.
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 it lists treatment/care plans and specifies the returned data (client, provider, status, objectives, items). It distinguishes this list tool from the sibling treatment_plans_get by its plural resource and filter/pagination focus.
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 explicitly notes the tool is read-only and that creation/editing stays in the UI, providing a clear when-not-to-use cue. It does not explicitly name alternative list tools like treatment_plans_get, but the list/get distinction is implied.
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.