Find available appointment slots within a 7-day window and filter by public or private insurance sector to identify bookable Doctolib options.
Variante « vue liste » de Doctolib (7 jours max) avec filtre de régime d'assurance. Réponse brute.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| motive_id | Yes | ||
| agenda_ids | Yes | ||
| practice_id | No | ||
| insurance_sector | No |
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 the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response is 'brute' (raw/unformatted), a useful behavioral note, but says nothing about pagination behavior or the external/live nature of results.
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?
It is a single terse sentence with no wasted words, but it is a fragment ('variante... réponse brute') rather than a front-loaded action statement, and the French phrasing is opaque for an agent.
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 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers only two parameters and omits required inputs, usage context, and return format. It is materially incomplete for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 0% and the description only accounts for insurance_sector (the filter) and days (7-day cap). The two required parameters motive_id and agenda_ids, plus practice_id, are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent unable to populate the required inputs.
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 a specific Doctolib "liste" variant with an insurance filter and a 7-day cap, which frames the resource and differentiates it from a presumed alternate view (e.g. get_availabilities). However, it never states the core verb/action (searching availability) explicitly, relying on the tool name to convey that.
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?
It implies an alternative exists ('variante vue liste') but never says when to use this tool versus get_availabilities or find_slots. The 7-day limit and insurance filter are constraints, not usage guidance, and no prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.