appointment_detailsRetrieve a single appointment by UID to view its services, staff, client, and price, with an option to skip the local cache.
One appointment with its services, staff, client and price.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fresh | No | Skip the local cache | |
| appointmentUid | Yes | appointment_uid from the calendar |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description contributes the one thing annotations don't: what the returned record contains (services, staff, client, price). It says nothing about caching or the meaning of the 'fresh' flag's effect on results, which leaves a gap given a cache-skipping parameter exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted, but it is under-specified rather than economical — it reads as a title restatement rather than a front-loaded statement of a verb and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter read with rich annotations and no output schema, an agent can probably invoke it correctly. However, the description is the only place return shape could be elaborated, and it gives just four field names without indicating completeness, error behavior, or cache semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in-schema ('appointment_uid from the calendar', 'Skip the local cache'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, sourcing, or effect semantics beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the resource (a single appointment) and enumerates its embedded entities (services, staff, client, price), which signals a single-record fetch rather than a list. But it is a noun fragment with no verb, and it never explicitly differentiates itself from siblings like calendar_agenda, appointment_payment_details, or appointment_changes_feed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. needing an appointmentUid sourced from the calendar), and no statement of what happens with an unknown UID. The agent must infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.