check_availabilityFree start times for a service between two instants (at most 14 days). A time that has started, or that starts within the business's minimum notice, is not offered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | End of the window, at most 14 days after from. | |
| from | Yes | Start of the window to search, ISO 8601. | |
| party_size | No | ||
| service_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations: it specifies the 14-day maximum window and that times already started or within the business's minimum notice are excluded. This gives useful context about how the tool operates, though it does not describe the return format.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and constraints. It contains no redundant information and every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
The description lacks details on the output format (e.g., whether it returns a list of timestamps, objects, or an empty result) and does not explain how party_size affects availability. Since there is no output schema, this information is necessary for the agent to interpret the tool's results correctly, leaving a significant 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 description clarifies the meaning of the time range (from/to) as 'between two instants' and the 14-day limit, but it does not explain party_size or service_id. With schema coverage at only 50%, the description does not adequately compensate for the undocumented parameters, leaving their semantics unclear.
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 tool lists free start times for a service within a time window, with specific constraints like the 14-day limit and exclusion of started times. It is specific and understandable, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like suggest_time, which also deals with time proposals.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as suggest_time or create_booking. It implies usage for checking availability but does not offer exclusions or routing advice, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
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.