next_appointmentGet the current user's next upcoming appointment across all (or specified) appointment groups.
Get the current user's next upcoming appointment across all (or specified) appointment groups.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appointment_group_ids | No | Limit to specific appointment group IDs |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.18.15Input schema / properties / appointment_group_ids / items / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / appointment_group_ids / items / 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 safety profile is covered. The description adds the current-user scope and that the result is a single next appointment across all or specified groups, but says nothing about what happens when no upcoming appointment exists or what the return shape is.
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, with the scope qualifier appended. No filler and nothing redundant.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, user context, and default filtering. The only gap is the empty-result case (no upcoming appointment), which is a minor omission.
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% with one optional parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning the schema does not: omitting appointment_group_ids searches across ALL groups, and the singular 'next' implies only the earliest match is returned.
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 and resource ('Get ... next upcoming appointment') scoped to the current user, which clearly separates it from list_appointment_groups and get_appointment_group. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.
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 phrase 'next upcoming' implies the single-result, forward-looking use case, and the current-user scoping is stated. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to the sibling appointment tools (list_appointment_groups, get_appointment_group, get_upcoming_events).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.