list_appointment_group_usersList participants (users) who have reserved a slot in an appointment group.
List participants (users) who have reserved a slot in an appointment group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 the safe-read profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the semantics of who is returned ('participants who have reserved a slot'), but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result shape that would matter to a caller. With annotations carrying safety, a 3 is appropriate.
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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is well-sized for a simple list tool, though the brevity leaves room that could be spent on routing guidance.
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 one-parameter read list with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose but omits any hint at return contents or result size. Adequate as a minimum-viable definition, with a clear gap given the absence of an output schema.
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?
There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents appointment_group_id. The description adds no format, ID-type, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides – baseline 3 for negligible added value.
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?
Specific verb (List) plus a precisely-scoped resource (participants/users who reserved a slot in an appointment group). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_appointment_group_groups, which returns groups rather than users. It stops just short of a 5 because it doesn't explicitly name that sibling as the alternative.
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 description states what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions versus siblings like list_appointment_group_groups or get_appointment_group. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.