find_available_slotsFree start times for one or more services with a team member, day by day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | First day to search. | |
| days | No | Days to search. Default: 1. | |
| service_ids | Yes | Service ids from list_services, done one after another in this order. | |
| team_member_id | No | Team member to book. Default: the first who takes bookings. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description usefully adds that results are 'free start times' produced per-day, but says nothing about empty-result behavior, ordering, or the day-search horizon beyond what the schema states.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scoping concepts (services, team member, day-by-day) appear immediately. It is efficient but borders on terse for a 4-parameter tool.
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?
No output schema, but annotations and a fully documented input schema carry most of the weight, so the description only needs modest supplementation. It adequately conveys the intent but leaves open what a returned slot looks like and how results behave when the search window yields nothing.
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 100%, so every parameter is already documented with meaning and defaults. The description only echoes that multiple services and a day-by-day range are supported, adding no format, ordering, or constraint detail beyond the 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 states a precise resource and scope: free start times across one or more services, attributed to a team member, iterated day by day. An agent can tell this is a read-only availability lookup rather than a booking action. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like create_appointment or list_appointments, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied: this is the pre-booking availability step that would feed into create_appointment. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is given, and it doesn't say whether a team member must be specified or what to do when zero slots return.
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.