Timeplex K-Beauty Booking

search_availability

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check real-time appointment availability and available time slots for a Korean beauty or wellness shop. Use this tool when a user asks whether a specific date or time is available, wants to find an available appointment slot, or asks for alternatives when a preferred time is unavailable. Returns available times and nearby alternatives when the requested time is unavailable. All times are in Korea Standard Time (KST).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	Yes	YYYY-MM-DD (Asia/Seoul)
`slug`	Yes	Shop slug returned by search_shops.
`time`	No	Optional requested appointment time (HH:MM). If provided, check whether that exact time is available and return nearby available alternatives if unavailable.
`items`	Yes	Booking items. Follow the booking_model returned by get_shop_services: use resource_id for designated-staff shops and qty for capacity-based shops. designated (hair salons, plus some beauty shops such as body scrub): [{service_id, resource_id}]. capacity (most massage, spa, etc.): [{service_id, qty}] where qty is the number of people.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	Yes
`mode`	No	Slot mode the shop operates in
`note`	No
`slots`	Yes
`blocked`	No	Present when online booking is blocked (e.g. 'inquiry_only')
`timezone`	No
`next_step`	No
`alternatives`	No	Nearby bookable times when the requested time is not available
`requested_time`	No	Verdict for the exact time asked, when time was given.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond annotations: results are 'real-time', it 'returns available times and nearby alternatives when the requested time is unavailable', and all times are in KST. This context helps the agent set expectations about fallback behavior and timezone handling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, with each sentence earning its place (purpose, use conditions, fallback behavior, timezone). Minor redundancy: the 'nearby alternatives when a preferred time is unavailable' idea appears in both sentence two and sentence three, but overall it is tight and well-ordered.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given an output schema exists and schema coverage is 100%, the description covers the essentials: what the tool returns, when to use it, fallback behavior, and timezone. It is complete enough for correct invocation; slight gaps around alternative granularity are adequately deferred to the output 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all parameters including the Asia/Seoul date format and the items model with resource_id/qty rules. The description adds only marginal reinforcement via the KST mention and the alternative-finding behavior mapped to the optional time parameter; it does not compensate beyond baseline because no compensation is needed.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Check real-time appointment availability and available time slots for a Korean beauty or wellness shop') and clearly defines scope. It naturally distinguishes from siblings: search_shops searches shops, request_booking/start_booking create bookings, and get_booking_status checks existing status, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives explicit when-to-use conditions: asking whether a specific date/time is available, finding an available slot, or requesting alternatives when preferred time is unavailable. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool, leaving exclusion guidance to inference.

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

All Timeplex K-Beauty Booking tools Inspect

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

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct step in the booking workflow: searching shops, retrieving services, checking availability, initiating a booking, and handling manual requests for non-bookable shops. Their purposes and usage conditions are clearly separated with specific guidance on when to use each, eliminating ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: get_shop_services, request_booking, search_availability, search_shops, start_booking. The verbs (get, request, search, start) and nouns (shop_services, booking, availability, shops) are all lowercase and underscore-separated, providing a predictable and readable naming scheme.

Tool Count5/5

With exactly 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose. It covers the essential phases of finding a shop, inspecting services, checking availability, and initiating bookings, without unnecessary expansion. This count is typical for a focused domain-specific MCP and each tool earns its place.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the primary booking flow comprehensively: search_shops, get_shop_services, search_availability, and start_booking handle the standard online-booking path, while request_booking covers shops that require manual concierge intervention. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for canceling or modifying bookings), but since start_booking only generates a booking link and actual reservation management happens on the booking page, the surface is reasonably complete for its stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?