Get published weekly office hours and any source conflicts. These are not live appointment slots; confirm holidays and exceptions with the office.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| practice_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hours | Yes | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| timezone | Yes | ||
| practice_id | Yes | ||
| practice_name | Yes | ||
| source_status | Yes | ||
| sources_checked | Yes | ||
| live_availability | Yes | ||
| information_may_be_outdated | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "hours": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "information_may_be_outdated": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "live_availability": {
+ "const": false
+ },
+ "practice_id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "practice_name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "source": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "source_status": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "sources_checked": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "timezone": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "sources_checked",
+ "information_may_be_outdated",
+ "source_status",
+ "practice_id",
+ "practice_name",
+ "hours",
+ "timezone",
+ "live_availability",
+ "source"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the hours are published weekly, source conflicts may exist, and holiday/exception details require confirmation.
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 two sentences with no wasted text. The key distinction from appointment slots is front-loaded.
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?
The tool is simple, annotations are rich, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers data caveats well, though it leaves the required practice_id parameter undocumented.
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% for the single required practice_id parameter. The description does not explain practice_id or its enum value, so it provides no semantic compensation for the missing schema documentation.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get published weekly office hours and any source conflicts.' It also explicitly distinguishes the data from live appointment slots, which helps separate it from the sibling get_appointment_link.
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?
It clearly says these are not live appointment slots and advises confirming holidays and exceptions with the office. It does not name a specific alternative sibling for booking appointments, but the exclusion context is strong.
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.