get_appointment_groupGet a single appointment group by ID, including 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.
v1.18.15Input schema / properties / appointment_group_id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / appointment_group_id / typeRemoved value: -"number"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 safety profile is covered. The description adds that time slots and participant counts are included in the response, which is useful behavioral context about return scope, though it doesn't cover pagination, permissions, or error behavior.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no wasted words.
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 read-by-ID tool with full schema coverage, full annotations, and only 2 params, this is minimally adequate. However, given the dense sibling set (list_appointment_groups, get_appointment_group_users, list_appointment_group_groups), more routing context would be valuable. No output schema, so some description of return shape is warranted, which it partially provides.
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 100% – both the ID and the 'include' enum are fully documented in the schema. The description adds little parameter detail beyond mentioning time slots and participant counts, which the schema already covers. Baseline 3 applies.
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) and resource (appointment group by ID) and enumerates what's returned. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like list_appointment_groups or get_appointment_group_users, but the singular 'single... by ID' framing is clear.
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 use this versus list_appointment_groups or the other appointment-group siblings. The 'single... by ID' phrasing implies retrieval-of-one, but no explicit when/when-not or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.