Skip to main content
Glama
dragosh29

Carebit MCP server

by dragosh29
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

List bookings

list_bookings
Read-only

Retrieve bookings with filters for date range, status, patient, or clinician, and handle recall statuses without time windows. Returns paginated results.

Instructions

Bookings in the Organization. Diary queries need start_time_from and start_time_to (UTC; a bare date is taken as the whole day), a range of at most 30 days, or 90 days with patient_id, ordered by start_time. For the recall statuses awaiting_recall, overdue_for_recall, recall_expired and recall_canceled omit the time window (those bookings have no start_time; results are ordered by recall_due_date); did_not_attend still needs it. Filters are ANDed and sent as documented: clinician_id, patient_id, status, updated_since. Patient names are returned; their contact details and the booking's free-text information only with include_contact_details.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cursorNonext_cursor from a previous call, to continue where it stopped (send the same filters)
statusNo
patient_idNoOnly this patient's bookings (allows a 90-day window)
max_resultsNoMaximum number of records to return (pages of up to 100 are fetched until this is reached)
clinician_idNo
start_time_toNoInclusive upper bound for start_time, YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ or YYYY-MM-DD (a bare date means the end of that day, 23:59:59Z, so a 31-day calendar month given as bare dates is 31 days and must be split)
updated_sinceNoOnly bookings updated since this UTC time
start_time_fromNoInclusive lower bound for start_time, YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ or YYYY-MM-DD
include_contact_detailsNoInclude patient contact details, date of birth, NHS number, address, payor details and the booking's information fields, and stop redacting email addresses, phone numbers, NHS-number-shaped digit groups and UK postcodes typed into names and other text

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint=true), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: ordering by start_time vs recall_due_date, the redaction default that include_contact_details turns off, and row/history constraints. Does not cover pagination/cursor mechanics beyond the schema.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, with the core resource stated first and constraints following in a logical order. Sentences are long and clause-heavy, but each clause carries a distinct rule rather than repetition.

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 9-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the tricky call-shaping rules (window size, recall statuses, include_contact_details effects) so an agent can invoke it correctly. It leaves the exact returned field set and cursor semantics to the schema.

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?

Schema coverage is 78%, so the schema does most of the work, but the description adds real semantics: bare-date handling, the 30/90-day window tied to patient_id, AND-ing of filters, and which filters suppress or require the time window. That is meaningfully more than the schema states.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource and scope ('Bookings in the Organization'), and the body distinguishes normal diary queries from recall-status queries. It does not name a sibling tool to differentiate against (e.g., get_booking, get_clinician_agenda), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives explicit conditional rules: diary queries need start_time_from/start_time_to, a max 30-day window (90 with patient_id), and recall statuses must omit the time window while did_not_attend still needs it. It lacks guidance on when to prefer this over sibling list/get tools, so not a 5.

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