Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

GlossGenius MCP Server and API by Cotlet

by dev.cotlet
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List appointments in GlossGenius

glossgenius_list_appointments
Read-onlyIdempotent

List appointments in the user's own GlossGenius account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in GlossGenius step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's GlossGenius Cloud Browser. GlossGenius's official API: GlossGenius has no public API, developer docs, webhooks or MCP server (checked 24 Oct 2026).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "glossgenius_list_appointments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: it 'opens nothing by itself' and requires a separate Cloud Browser step to actually execute. The note that GlossGenius has no public API/webhooks/MCP server preempts an agent wasting calls on a nonexistent integration, though the exact return format (screens/buttons/fields text) is only loosely characterized.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded and the key instruction comes early, but the phrasing is padded: 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' adds nothing, and the closing API note is awkwardly written ('GlossGenius's official API: GlossGenius has no public API'). The API fact earns its place; the framing around it does not.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a parameterless guide tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields), that it has no side effects, and what the agent must do afterward. Only the distinction from cotlet_app_guide and the other glossgenius_* siblings is left unaddressed.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly implies no scoping input is needed, though it could have stated that the account is inferred from the authenticated user rather than passed in.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific verb and resource ('List appointments in the user's own GlossGenius account') and then discloses the crucial twist that the tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than the data itself. This distinguishes the behavior from what the name alone suggests, though it never contrasts itself with the analogous cotlet_app_guide or the other glossgenius_* tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives an implied follow-on workflow ('then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's GlossGenius Cloud Browser'), which tells the agent what to do next. It stops short of explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or naming which sibling to pick when the user wants booking, rescheduling, or client lookup instead.

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

All GlossGenius MCP Server and API by Cotlet toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources