Skip to main content
Glama

cliniko

by io.usefulapi

List patients

cliniko_list_patients
Read-only

Search/list patients. Name/email filters use Cliniko 'contains' matching (q[]=field:~value). GET /patients.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number (1-based). Default 1.
sortNoField to sort by, e.g. created_at.
emailNoFilter by email (contains match).
orderNoSort direction. asc | desc.
per_pageNoResults per page (max 100). Default 50.
last_nameNoFilter by last name (contains match).
first_nameNoFilter by first name (contains match).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only behavior is covered. The description adds the Cliniko 'contains' matching rule and q[] parameter syntax, which are useful behavioral details not present in annotations. It does not disclose return format or pagination behavior beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

A single well-structured sentence with the primary purpose front-loaded and the filter behavior appended. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter read-only list endpoint with rich schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It does not state what a response contains or pagination defaults, though those are inferable from the schema.

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 parameters are already documented, including 'contains match' on filter fields. The description's mention of 'contains' matching is redundant with the schema, though the q[]=field:~value syntax adds a small implementation detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Search/list patients,' a specific verb and resource, and references the endpoint 'GET /patients.' This clearly distinguishes a list operation from sibling tools like cliniko_get_patient.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool versus siblings such as cliniko_get_patient or cliniko_list_appointments. The description explains filtering mechanics but provides no use-case context or exclusions.

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

All cliniko toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

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-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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count4/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources