cliniko_get_accountGet the Cliniko account and subscription details for the authenticated API key. A good first call to sanity-check auth, shard, and User-Agent. GET /account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 include readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with it, adding the diagnostic purpose of validating auth, shard, and User-Agent. It also reveals the endpoint and that the scope is tied to the authenticated API key, which is useful 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, each with a distinct job: state the operation, state its recommended use, and state the HTTP endpoint. No filler or irrelevant detail.
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?
For a zero-parameter read-only tool, the description covers what it does, who it acts for, and when to call it, which is enough for selection and invocation. It does not enumerate response fields, but the absence of an output schema and the generic 'account and subscription details' phrasing keep this a minor gap.
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?
The schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information for the description to supplement; per the rubric this is a baseline 4. The description still clarifies that the call uses the authenticated API key implicitly, which is the only meaningful semantic context.
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 states a specific verb ('Get'), object ('Cliniko account and subscription details'), and scope ('for the authenticated API key'), making it clearly distinct from sibling per-resource get/list tools. The addition of 'GET /account' reinforces the exact operation.
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?
It explicitly flags itself as 'A good first call to sanity-check auth, shard, and User-Agent,' giving an agent a concrete trigger condition for choosing it. It does not contrast siblings, but no other sibling targets account-level auth/subscription info, so the context is sufficient.
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-action pair such as patients, appointments, invoices, treatment notes, or availability. Even the two availability tools are clearly separated by description: list_available_times returns multiple slots while next_available_time returns one.
Tools consistently use the cliniko_ prefix with get_, list_, or create_ verbs before a resource name. The only notable deviation is cliniko_next_available_time, which lacks an explicit verb, but the overall pattern remains predictable and easy to navigate.
At 17 tools, the server is on the higher end but still reasonable for a practice-management API covering account info, businesses, practitioners, patients, appointments, invoices, treatment notes, products, and availability. Each tool maps to a meaningful endpoint, though next_available_time could be seen as partially redundant with list_available_times.
The core booking workflow is covered well: clients can look up availability and create appointments, and patient lookup is supported. However, there are no update, delete, or cancel operations for appointments or patients, and invoices and treatment notes are read-only, leaving notable lifecycle gaps.