ILIT Society - directory of allergists offering intralymphatic immunotherapy

request_consultation

Send a consultation request (a first conversation, at the practice or over Zoom) to a listing that offers consultations. The practice contacts the person within two business days to confirm a time; nothing is booked by the site. Requires the person’s 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_consultation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`how`	No	practice or zoom; must be one the listing offers (see requests.consultation_types).
`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.
`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).
`time_of_day`	No	morning, afternoon or either.
`preferred_days`	No	Preferred weekdays, if any.

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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare openWorld and non-idempotent, and the description adds real behavior beyond them: the request is forwarded to the practice, the practice responds within two business days, and no reservation exists afterward. It does not address duplicate submissions, failure modes, or what a rejected/invalid listing_id returns, which would be the remaining gaps.

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 dense sentences ordered as purpose, then post-call behavior, then required inputs — well front-loaded. The final sentence largely duplicates the schema's required list, which is the only marginally wasted line.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With a full-coverage schema, complete annotations, and an output schema covering the response, the description supplies exactly the missing piece: what happens to the request after submission and the two-business-day expectation. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every field including the consent rationale and the how/time_of_day enums. The description only restates the required set ("name, phone, email and consent=true"), adding emphasis on the consent gate but no new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Send a consultation request") with an explicit definition of what a consultation is ("a first conversation, at the practice or over Zoom") and an eligibility constraint ("a listing that offers consultations"). It implicitly separates itself from a booking tool via "nothing is booked by the site," but never names a sibling such as request_appointment, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Clear eligibility context: the listing must offer consultations, and the description frames the outcome (practice calls the person, no booking), which tells an agent this is for expressing interest, not securing a slot. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming the alternative tool an agent should use if it actually wants a confirmed appointment.

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?