MCP Cliniko Server

cleanup_comprehensive_test_data

Remove test data from Cliniko with selective deletion options and preview capability. Delete patients, appointments, invoices, or products individually or all at once.

Instructions

Clean up all test data with granular control and dry-run option

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "cleanup_comprehensive_test_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`delete_patients`	No
`delete_appointments`	No
`delete_invoices`	No
`delete_products`	No
`delete_all_test_data`	No
`test_domain`	No		test.cliniko.com
`dry_run`	No	Preview what would be deleted without actually deleting

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Apr 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the dry-run capability and implies destructiveness through 'clean up,' but it fails to mention that deletion is irreversible (unless dry-run), required permissions, or the test_domain scoping.

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 very concise (11 words) and front-loads the action, but it omits important details that could be added without significant verbosity, such as the list of deletable entities.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does not explain return behavior, the effect of 'delete_all_test_data,' or the test_domain parameter, making it incomplete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 14% (only dry_run has a description). The description adds 'granular control' and 'dry-run' but does not explain the individual boolean toggles or the test_domain parameter, leaving most parameters underdocumented.

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 clearly states the action ('clean up all test data') with modifiers ('granular control and dry-run option'), but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'cleanup_test_data' or specify what 'all test data' entails beyond the schema parameters.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'cleanup_test_data' or other test data tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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