List labels
acuity_list_labelsRead-only
List the appointment labels (colored tags) defined on the account. Acuity REST: GET /labels.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
acuity-scheduling
by io.usefulapi
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and description is consistent. However, description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., response structure or side effects) beyond the API endpoint mention.
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?
Two short sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what it lists and references the API.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4; description adds no extra parameter info but isn't required to.
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?
Purpose is clear: 'List the appointment labels (colored tags) defined on the account.' The verb 'List' is specific, and the resource 'labels' is distinct from sibling tools like list_appointments or list_clients.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Usage is implied but not elaborated; no exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (appointments, clients, calendars, etc.) with clear naming and no overlapping functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'acuity_<verb>_<noun>' with uniform verb choices (list, get, create, cancel, reschedule) and proper pluralization.
Tool Count5/5
18 tools cover the essential aspects of a scheduling system (availability, appointments, clients, calendars, etc.) without being excessive or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
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.