ILIT Society - directory of allergists offering intralymphatic immunotherapy

request_appointment

For a person who has decided to start ILIT: send an appointment request to a listing that accepts them. The practice contacts the person within two business days to confirm dates; nothing is booked by the site. Requires name, phone, email and consent=true.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "listing_id": "<listing_id>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "email": "<email>",
      "phone": "<phone>",
      "consent": "<consent>"
    },
    "name": "request_appointment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	The person’s full name.
`email`	Yes	The person’s email; they get a confirmation and the practice can reply to it.
`phone`	Yes	The person’s phone number; practices usually call.
`start`	No	asap, months3 (within three months) or season (before the next pollen season).
`consent`	Yes	Must be true: the person agreed that their request is sent to the practice, that the practice contacts them to confirm, that nothing is booked by the site and that the Society keeps no medical information.
`message`	No	Optional note to the practice (allergens, past treatment, questions). Up to 2000 characters.
`agent_name`	No	Optional: the assistant or product sending this, recorded with the request.
`listing_id`	Yes	The listing id (from find_practitioners or get_practitioner).
`preferred_days`	No	Preferred weekdays, if any.
`had_consultation`	No	here (with this practice), elsewhere, or none.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`listing`	No
`message`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the practice contacts the person within two business days and 'nothing is booked by the site'. It does not address the non-idempotent hint (whether a retry creates a duplicate request) or what the response looks like, leaving a small gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the audience and action, with the key constraint ('nothing is booked by the site') placed before the requirements. The final 'Requires name, phone, email and consent=true' sentence largely duplicates schema required fields and is the only soft spot.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the 10-parameter surface is fully documented in the schema. However, for a submission tool with a closely related sibling, the definition omits how it differs from request_consultation and what happens on duplicate/resubmitted requests.

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 schema already explains all 10 parameters, including listing_id provenance and the consent semantics. The description only restates the required set ('name, phone, email and consent=true') and adds no extra meaning such as format or edge cases beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'send an appointment request to a listing that accepts them', plus a qualifying audience ('a person who has decided to start ILIT'). An agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema, though the near-identical sibling request_consultation is never named or distinguished.

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 precondition 'for a person who has decided to start ILIT' implies when to use it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no pointer to request_consultation, which is the obvious alternative given the sibling list. Usage is inferable but not routed.

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

All ILIT Society - directory of allergists offering intralymphatic immunotherapy tools Inspect

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

Need Help?