Skip to main content
Glama

cliniko

by io.usefulapi

List appointments

cliniko_list_appointments
Read-only

List individual appointments, optionally filtered by patient/practitioner/business/type and a starts_at date-time window (starts_from / starts_to, ISO 8601). GET /individual_appointments.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number (1-based). Default 1.
sortNoField to sort by, e.g. created_at.
orderNoSort direction. asc | desc.
per_pageNoResults per page (max 100). Default 50.
starts_toNoOnly appointments starting before this ISO 8601 time (q[]=starts_at:<).
patient_idNoFilter by patient id (q[]=patient_id:=).
business_idNoFilter by business id.
starts_fromNoOnly appointments starting at/after this ISO 8601 time (q[]=starts_at:>).
practitioner_idNoFilter by practitioner id.
appointment_type_idNoFilter by appointment type id.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the endpoint and date/time filter window, but does not mention pagination behavior, response shape, or sort/order defaults. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, followed by the optional filter summary and endpoint. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with 10 optional parameters and no output schema, the description captures the main behavior and filter families, and the schema covers the remaining detail. It does not describe the response shape or pagination explicitly, but given the readOnly annotation and the richness of the input schema, the definition is complete enough for effective use.

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 input schema already documents each parameter. The description groups the filters into patient/practitioner/business/type and specifies ISO 8601 date-time format, which adds modest interpretive value, but it largely summarizes what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List individual appointments') and adds the endpoint 'GET /individual_appointments,' making the operation unambiguous. It also enumerates the filter dimensions, which distinguishes it from single-resource tools like cliniko_get_appointment and from list_available_times.

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?

The description states clearly what the tool does and what optional filters exist, so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for a single appointment use cliniko_get_appointment). Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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

All cliniko 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-action pair such as patients, appointments, invoices, treatment notes, or availability. Even the two availability tools are clearly separated by description: list_available_times returns multiple slots while next_available_time returns one.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tools consistently use the cliniko_ prefix with get_, list_, or create_ verbs before a resource name. The only notable deviation is cliniko_next_available_time, which lacks an explicit verb, but the overall pattern remains predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count4/5

At 17 tools, the server is on the higher end but still reasonable for a practice-management API covering account info, businesses, practitioners, patients, appointments, invoices, treatment notes, products, and availability. Each tool maps to a meaningful endpoint, though next_available_time could be seen as partially redundant with list_available_times.

Completeness3/5

The core booking workflow is covered well: clients can look up availability and create appointments, and patient lookup is supported. However, there are no update, delete, or cancel operations for appointments or patients, and invoices and treatment notes are read-only, leaving notable lifecycle gaps.

Resources