get_appointment_groupRetrieve a specific appointment group by ID to view its time slots and participant counts.
Get a single appointment group by ID, including its time slots and participant counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | Extra data to include: appointments (time slots), child_events (per-slot reservations), participant_count | |
| appointment_group_id | Yes | The appointment group ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.18.11Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.18.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds that the response includes time slots and participant counts, which is useful, but it is ambiguous whether these are included by default or only via the include parameter.
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 sentence that front-loads the operation and resource, then adds the key response attributes. There is no filler or repetition of schema details, making it maximally efficient.
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 read-only single-getter with two parameters and complete schema documentation, the description is sufficient. Minor gaps remain: it does not mention the 'child_events' include option nor provide explicit sibling distinctions, but these are not critical for a correct call.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a loose mapping of 'time slots' and 'participant counts' to the include enum values, but no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('appointment group'), and scope ('single...by ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from list_appointment_groups and the mutating siblings, and mentions the included data (time slots, participant counts), leaving no doubt about what the tool does.
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?
The singular 'by ID' implies this is the tool to use when an appointment group ID is already known, but the description never explicitly contrasts it with list_appointment_groups or update_appointment_group. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.