Skip to main content
Glama

cliniko

by io.usefulapi

Next available time

cliniko_next_available_time
Read-only

Get the single next bookable slot for a business + practitioner + appointment type (optionally from a date). GET /businesses/{business_id}/practitioners/{practitioner_id}/appointment_types/{appointment_type_id}/next_available_time.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fromNoOptional earliest date yyyy-mm-dd to search from.
business_idYesBusiness id (path).
practitioner_idYesPractitioner id (path).
appointment_type_idYesAppointment type id (path).

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
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, and the description reinforces this with 'Get' and the GET endpoint. The description adds the 'optionally from a date' condition but does not disclose extra behavioral details like error handling, timezone behavior, or response format.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core behavior. The second sentence restates the endpoint path, which is somewhat redundant with the schema but still useful for clarifying the HTTP GET operation.

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 simple read-only tool with fully documented parameters, the description is largely sufficient. Without an output schema, some return-format details are missing, but the tool's purpose and invocation requirements are clear.

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 does not need to re-explain parameters. The description mentions the optional 'from' date, but the schema already documents this precisely with the yyyy-mm-dd pattern.

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 ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource scope: business + practitioner + appointment type, with 'single next bookable slot' distinguishing it from listing many slots. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like cliniko_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 Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context by targeting the single next bookable slot, optionally from a date, which tells an agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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