acuity_availability_datesList dates in a month that have availability for an appointment type. Acuity REST: GET /availability/dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| month | Yes | Month to check, formatted YYYY-MM, e.g. '2026-08'. | |
| timezone | No | IANA timezone for the returned dates, e.g. 'America/New_York'. | |
| calendarID | No | Restrict to a specific calendar id. | |
| appointmentTypeID | Yes | Appointment type id to check availability for (required). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it lists dates with availability but does not detail response structure, pagination, or auth requirements. It provides basic behavioral context without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence plus an API reference. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff. Ideal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 hint at the return format or workflow. It does not mention that the result is a list of dates, nor does it relate to sibling tools. Adequate for a simple list but gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, e.g., it does not explain the timezone or calendarID parameters further. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'dates', and the context 'in a month that have availability for an appointment type'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like acuity_availability_times by focusing on dates rather than times.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as acuity_availability_times or acuity_availability_classes. The description implies usage by stating the function, but explicit exclusions or context for choosing this tool are missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (appointments, clients, calendars, etc.) with clear naming and no overlapping functionality.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'acuity_<verb>_<noun>' with uniform verb choices (list, get, create, cancel, reschedule) and proper pluralization.
18 tools cover the essential aspects of a scheduling system (availability, appointments, clients, calendars, etc.) without being excessive or insufficient.
Core scheduling operations are well covered, but missing update and delete for clients, and read-only access to other entities (e.g., appointment types, blocks) may limit full lifecycle management.