Skip to main content
Glama

acuity-scheduling

by io.usefulapi

Create appointment

acuity_create_appointment
Destructive

CREATES a new appointment (books a client into a time slot). This MODIFIES the calendar and, unless suppressed, may send confirmation emails. Acuity REST: POST /appointments.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
adminNoIf true, book as admin — bypasses availability checks and required-form enforcement. Default false.
emailYesClient email (required).
notesNoNotes to attach to the appointment.
phoneNoClient phone number.
fieldsNoIntake form field answers, each { id, value }.
noEmailNoIf true, suppress client/owner confirmation emails.
datetimeYesStart time in ISO 8601 with offset, e.g. '2026-08-15T14:00:00-0400' (required).
lastNameYesClient last name (required).
timezoneNoIANA timezone for the datetime, e.g. 'America/New_York'.
firstNameYesClient first name (required).
calendarIDNoCalendar id to book on (defaults to an available one).
appointmentTypeIDYesAppointment type id to book (required).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it states the tool modifies the calendar and may send confirmation emails. This matches the annotation and provides useful behavioral details.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds behavioral and endpoint info. No filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema is provided, but the description does not mention return values or error conditions. For a creation tool with 12 parameters, more context on expected output and prerequisites would be helpful.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds little over the schema. It provides general context but no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 description clearly states 'CREATES a new appointment (books a client into a time slot)', specifying the action and resource. It also mentions calendar modification and email effects, distinguishing it from siblings like cancel or reschedule.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cancel or reschedule. The description only notes email suppression, but lacks when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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

All acuity-scheduling toolsInspect
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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (appointments, clients, calendars, etc.) with clear naming and no overlapping functionality.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the consistent pattern 'acuity_<verb>_<noun>' with uniform verb choices (list, get, create, cancel, reschedule) and proper pluralization.

Tool Count5/5

18 tools cover the essential aspects of a scheduling system (availability, appointments, clients, calendars, etc.) without being excessive or insufficient.

Completeness4/5

Core scheduling operations are well covered, but missing update and delete for clients, and read-only access to other entities (e.g., appointment types, blocks) may limit full lifecycle management.

Resources