MCP Cliniko Server

create_appointment

Schedule patient appointments in Cliniko by specifying start time, practitioner, appointment type, and business details to manage healthcare bookings.

Instructions

Create a new appointment

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": {
      "starts_at": "<starts_at>",
      "practitioner_id": "<practitioner_id>",
      "appointment_type_id": "<appointment_type_id>",
      "business_id": "<business_id>"
    },
    "name": "create_appointment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`starts_at`	Yes	Appointment start time (ISO 8601)
`patient_id`	No	Patient ID (optional for walk-ins)
`practitioner_id`	Yes	Practitioner ID
`appointment_type_id`	Yes	Appointment type ID
`business_id`	Yes	Business ID
`notes`	No	Appointment notes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Apr 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create', implying a write operation, but does not mention any side effects, required permissions, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more informative without harming conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters (4 required) and no output schema, the description is overly minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns, any constraints on inputs, or how it behaves under failure. A more complete description would include return value or side effects.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the structured schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a new appointment' clearly states the action and resource, but does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'update_appointment' or 'delete_appointment'. It is concise and direct, earning a 4 for clear purpose without differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'cancel_appointment' or 'get_appointment'. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or use cases, leaving the agent without decision support.

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