AestheticsPro MCP Server

aestheticspro_guide

Explains how to use AestheticsPro screens and sign-in link, schedule appointments, and manage client contacts; call this first before other AestheticsPro actions.

Instructions

How to work in AestheticsPro (schedule appointments and manage client contacts): its screens and the sign-in link. Call this first.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "aestheticspro_guide"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task`	No	What you want done in AestheticsPro, in your words.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a purely informational lookup by naming the content (screens, sign-in link), but never says whether calling it merely returns text or actually navigates the browser, nor whether it has side effects. That ambiguity matters for an agent deciding whether this is safe to call repeatedly.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the ordering instruction front-loaded at the end of a compact statement; nothing is padded. The parenthetical is mildly awkward but still earns its place by naming the supported workflows.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a low-complexity, single-parameter orientation tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to know when to call it and what topic it covers. The only real gap is whether it is a passive reference or performs navigation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single optional parameter, 'task', and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains it fully. The description adds no guidance on how to phrase the task or what granularity is useful, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource and content: guidance on AestheticsPro's screens and the sign-in link, scoped to scheduling appointments and managing client contacts. That clearly separates it from the sibling tools, which are browser actions (click, open, read, type), but 'How to work in' is slightly vague about the form of what comes back.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Call this first' is an explicit sequencing instruction that tells the agent to invoke this before the click/open/read siblings, which is real routing guidance. It does not state any exclusion or repeat-call behavior, but for an orientation tool the ordering rule covers the main decision.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server