Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
DaySmart MCP server

DaySmart MCP server

by cotlet-connect
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

daysmart_status

Check whether your Cotlet.dev account, available credits, and DaySmart connection are ready before reading or booking appointments.

Instructions

Check that your Cotlet.dev account and DaySmart are ready: account, credits and DaySmart 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": "daysmart_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 are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the three things being verified (account, credits, connection), which usefully signals a read-only diagnostic with no destructive side effects, but it says nothing about failure modes, whether credits being insufficient is reported as an error, or how results are 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 wasted preamble. Minor redundancy: "account" and "DaySmart" each appear twice in one short sentence, which slightly muddies rather than sharpens the scope.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description should say what a caller actually gets back (per-check booleans? error if not ready?). It enumerates the checks but not the shape or semantics of the result, leaving a real gap for a diagnostic tool whose whole value is its return value.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter meaning for the description to add or omit. The description correctly stays silent on inputs rather than inventing any.

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 names a specific verb ("Check") and specific resources (Cotlet.dev account, credits, DaySmart connection), so the agent knows this is a readiness/health probe rather than a UI action like its click/close/read siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the name and phrasing make the distinction clear.

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?

Usage is only implied: "Check that ... are ready" suggests a preflight step before calling the action tools, but the description never says when to call it, when not to, or that it precedes daysmart_open/daysmart_click. An agent must infer the workflow position.

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