Create a Doctolib appointment link with a preselected practice and reason, so users can choose an available time slot.
Lien vers le tunnel de réservation Doctolib avec lieu et motif pré-sélectionnés (le créneau ne peut pas l'être).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| motive_id | No | ||
| practice_id | No | ||
| url_or_slug | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-dependency profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral constraint — the time slot cannot be pre-selected — which is useful context, but says nothing about link validity, expiry, or what the returned URL resolves to.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence; the parenthetical limitation is the only elaboration and it earns its place by preventing a wrong assumption. No filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is routing guidance against the large sibling set and semantics for the required url_or_slug input — gaps that matter for a 3-parameter tool exercised in a crowded namespace.
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 0% for all three parameters, so the description must carry the load. It partially helps by implying lieu maps to practice_id and motif to motive_id, but leaves the required url_or_slug parameter completely unexplained (URL vs slug format, expected shape).
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?
Names the specific artifact (a link to the Doctolib booking funnel) and states what is and isn't pre-set (place and motive yes, time slot no). An agent can distinguish it from slot-search siblings like find_slots or get_availabilities, though the sibling set isn't referenced by name.
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?
No indication of when to reach for booking_link versus the many availability/search siblings, nor any prerequisite (e.g. that place/motive must already be known). Usage is only implicitly inferrable from the mention of pre-selected place and motive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.