MCP Cliniko Server

get_appointment_invoices

Retrieve invoice details for a specific appointment in Cliniko to track billing and payment information.

Instructions

Get invoices for a specific appointment (READ-ONLY)

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": {
      "appointment_id": "<appointment_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_appointment_invoices"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`appointment_id`	Yes	Appointment ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Apr 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It correctly states 'READ-ONLY', signaling no mutation. However, it does not disclose whether the tool returns a list or single invoice, pagination behavior, or error handling. The minimal disclosure meets basic needs but lacks completeness.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Extremely concise at 6 words, front-loaded with the key purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter tool and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but does not explain the return value (list of invoices, summary vs full details). The presence of siblings like 'list_invoices' and 'get_invoice' creates a need for slightly more precision, yet the description barely differentiates beyond the appointment scope.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the single parameter 'appointment_id' as 'Appointment ID'. The description adds no extra meaning about format, range, or how to obtain the ID. Per guidelines, with 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.

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 clearly states the action 'Get invoices' and the specific resource 'for a specific appointment'. The '(READ-ONLY)' suffix adds behavioral clarity. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_invoices' (unfiltered) and 'get_patient_invoices' (by patient).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_invoices' or 'get_patient_invoices'. The context is implied by the name and description, but explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are missing.

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