Square Appointments MCP server

square_appointments_type

Types text into a numbered field on the current Square Appointments page, letting you fill form inputs by referencing the field number from the last read.

Instructions

Type text into a numbered field on the current Square Appointments page.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "element": "<element>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "square_appointments_type"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	Text to type.
`element`	Yes	Field number from the last read.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Nov 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it. It does not say whether existing text in the field is replaced or appended, whether focus/blur or submit events fire, whether an index shifts after typing, or what is returned or raised on failure — all critical for a stateful browser-automation typing action.

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. It is efficient, though its brevity is arguably part of the completeness problem rather than a virtue.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a stateful browser action with no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover prerequisites (open page, prior read for the index) and what the call leaves behind. None of that is stated, leaving the agent to infer the whole operating model from the schema alone.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both 'element' and 'text' already documented in the input schema. The description adds only mild context by scoping the field to the current page; it adds no syntax, length, or escaping guidance for 'text' beyond the schema.

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?

States a concrete verb ('Type') and a concrete target ('a numbered field on the current Square Appointments page'), which is enough to tell it apart from the click/read/open siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming when another tool is the right one, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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: 'current ... page' hints that a page must already be open, and the schema note 'Field number from the last read' implies a prior read. The description itself never says when to use this versus square_appointments_click or what to do if the page is not open.

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

Deploy Server