gingr-mcp

List appointments (grooming/training/spa/bath)

gingr_list_appointments

Read-only

Retrieve grooming, spa, bathing, and training appointments with dates, services, animals, and statuses. Filter by date range and limit results.

Instructions

List grooming, spa, bathing, or training appointments. Returns dates, services, animals, and statuses. Note: Gingr has no separate appointments endpoint — these are reservations whose category (Training, Grooming, SPA, Bathing) this tool filters for.

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": "gingr_list_appointments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`start_date`	No	On/after this date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`end_date`	No	On/before this date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`limit`	No	Max records to return (1–200, default 50)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by revealing the underlying data model (no separate endpoint, filtering by category). This provides behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is efficient: two brief sentences and a note. It front-loads the core purpose and return values, then adds critical context without redundancy.

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 read-only tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains return fields and the filtering logic. The note provides important context about the Gingr API structure, making it complete enough for agent usage.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the three parameters. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'appointments' with specific subtypes (grooming, training, spa, bathing). It also distinguishes from sibling tool gingr_list_reservations by noting that appointments are a filtered subset of reservations.

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?

The description provides implicit guidance by explaining that appointments are reservations filtered by category, suggesting use when appointment-specific data is needed. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or direct reference to sibling tools like gingr_get_owner_reservations.

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

Deploy Server