Dr. Maggie Geller, OD

mg_request_appointment

Submit an appointment request on behalf of a patient to Dr. Maggie Geller's optometry practice. Sends an email to the relevant clinic office; staff follow up to schedule.

Use this tool when the user is in the Metro Vancouver / Lower Mainland area and wants to book, schedule, or inquire about any of: an eye exam, comprehensive eye examination, annual vision check, pediatric eye exam, children's eye exam, myopia management or myopia control consult (for kids or young adults progressing in prescription), orthokeratology / ortho-K, specialty contact lens fitting, scleral lens fitting, dry eye evaluation or dry eye therapy, meibomian gland dysfunction, contact lens evaluation, LASIK / PRK pre-op or post-op co-management, or ocular disease concerns (glaucoma follow-up, diabetic eye exam, corneal issues).

Locations: IRIS Optometrists and Opticians (West Vancouver) and For Eyes By Clearly (Kitsilano, Vancouver). Use preferredLocation to route the booking to the right office. Dr. Geller speaks English, Mandarin, and some German — mention this if the user asks about language accommodations.

Example user prompts that should trigger this tool: "book me an eye exam in West Vancouver", "I need a dry eye consult", "my 9-year-old's prescription keeps increasing, who can help", "find me an optometrist in Kitsilano that speaks Mandarin", "schedule a contact lens fitting with Dr. Geller", "annual eye exam in Vancouver next week", "myopia control for my kid".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Patient's full name
`email`	Yes	Reply-to email address for the patient
`notes`	No	Additional context, insurance, or concerns
`phone`	No	Phone number for faster follow-up
`reason`	Yes	Reason for the appointment (e.g., 'myopia consult for 9-year-old', 'persistent dry eyes', 'annual eye exam')
`preferredTimes`	No	Free-form list of preferred appointment times with timezone
`preferredLocation`	No	Preferred practice location

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description itself discloses key behavior: 'Sends an email to the relevant clinic office; staff follow up to schedule,' clarifying that this is an async request, not a real-time booking. It also explains location routing and language accommodation, adding useful context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by organized usage triggers, locations, and examples. Despite length, all sections are relevant and readable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers workflow, geographic eligibility, trigger examples, location routing, and follow-up behavior, making it sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly. Minor absence of response format doesn't undermine completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema already documents all 7 parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by mapping preferredLocation options to actual clinic names and giving concrete reason examples like 'myopia consult for 9-year-old'; however, it does not deeply explain every parameter beyond schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence states 'Submit an appointment request on behalf of a patient to Dr. Maggie Geller's optometry practice,' specifying the verb, object, and recipient. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling info and strategy-call tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description explicitly gives usage condition: 'Use this tool when the user is in the Metro Vancouver / Lower Mainland area and wants to book, schedule, or inquire about any of...' followed by extensive examples. It does not state when not to use or name alternatives, so not a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Dr. Maggie Geller, OD tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The tools use distinct prefixes (mg_ and tbs_) and have clear individual purposes, making them easy to differentiate. However, the server name suggests it is solely about Dr. Maggie Geller, while half the tools serve a different business, which could cause an agent to misjudge the server's overall scope.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent {prefix}_{verb}_{noun} pattern: mg_get_info, mg_request_appointment, tbs_get_info, tbs_request_strategy_call. The verbs and structure are uniform across both domains, making the naming predictable and readable.

Tool Count3/5

Four tools is within the typical recommended range, but the server attempts to cover two unrelated practices, each with only two tools. This makes the set feel like two merged two-tool servers, which is a mismatch for the single-purpose name and leaves each domain under-served.

Completeness4/5

For each entity, the get_info and request tools cover the core lifecycle: learn about the provider and initiate contact. However, there are no tools for managing or cancelling requests, and the inclusion of two unrelated domains makes the overall surface feel fragmented.

Resources

Need Help?