Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AestheticsPro MCP Server

AestheticsPro MCP Server

by cotlet-connect
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

aestheticspro_status

Check whether your Cotlet.dev account, available credits, and AestheticsPro connection are ready before scheduling appointments or accessing client data.

Instructions

Check that your Cotlet.dev account and AestheticsPro are ready: account, credits and AestheticsPro connection.

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_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the three things verified (account, credits, connection), which is real content, but it says nothing about whether the call is read-only, whether it performs a live network check, or how a failure/partial-readiness result is surfaced.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the enumerated checks come last where they are easy to scan. Minor redundancy: "account" appears both in the readiness clause and again in the enumeration.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool this is close to sufficient: it names exactly what is validated. The remaining gap is that there is no output schema, so an agent cannot know the shape of the readiness result (boolean vs. list of failing checks) from the description.

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 are zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to add and the baseline applies. The description correctly introduces no argument concepts that would need explaining.

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 uses a specific verb ("Check ... are ready") over a named resource set (Cotlet.dev account, credits, AestheticsPro connection), which is clearly distinct from the action-oriented siblings like aestheticspro_open or aestheticspro_click. It is unambiguous what the tool inspects, though it never explicitly says it is a preflight/diagnostic step relative to those siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The word "ready" implies this should be run before attempting other AestheticsPro operations, but that sequencing is left to inference rather than stated. No alternatives are named and no when-not-to-use condition is given, so usage is only implied.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools