Skip to main content
Glama

g-guest

by app.g-guest
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

create_booking

Create a real reservation. Use a start value returned by check_availability. Never invent guest details. Ask the person for their real name, email and phone first. If the result status is pending_confirmation, show the guest the confirmation_url. If it is pending_payment, the venue takes a prepayment: show the guest the payment_url, and do not say it is booked until it is paid.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
slugYes
emailYes
notesNo
phoneYes
startYesThe slot's `start` value, copied exactly as check_availability returned it.
sourceNoWhich assistant is booking. Defaults to other_ai. proof_video is our own channel: bookings made while filming a proof clip.
languageNoThe guest's language as an ISO 639-1 code: en, nl, de, fr, es, it, id or bg. The confirmation, the reminders and the manage page are sent in it. Defaults to English.
party_sizeYes
idempotency_keyNoRetry safety: pick any unique string for this booking attempt and reuse it on retries. The same key always returns the same booking, never a duplicate.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key / description
      Previous value: -"Retry safety: pick any unique string for this booking attempt and reuse it on retries — the same key always returns the same booking, never a duplicate."New value: +"Retry safety: pick any unique string for this booking attempt and reuse it on retries. The same key always returns the same booking, never a duplicate."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / language
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The guest's language as an ISO 639-1 code: en, nl, de, fr, es, it, id or bg. The confirmation, the reminders and the manage page are sent in it. Defaults to English.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the pending_confirmation and pending_payment outcome branches and the required post-call behavior (show confirmation_url; show payment_url and do not claim it is booked until paid). It does not cover failure modes such as a slot becoming unavailable, retry semantics beyond the schema's idempotency_key, or any auth/rate constraints.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a sequence of concrete operational constraints. Every sentence carries an instruction or a constraint, though the status-handling sentences are dense and could be split for scannability.

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?

For a 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the important return branches and the guest-facing contract around payments and pending states. It leaves the straightforward immediate-confirmation success case and error behavior implicit, but the agent has enough to act correctly.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by emphasizing that name/email/phone must be real human-supplied values. However, it adds nothing about notes, party_size, or the source/language fields handled only in the schema, leaving several parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a real reservation') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling check_availability, which supplies the required start value. An agent can tell what this tool does and what it is not (check/cancel) without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit prerequisites and routing: obtain start from check_availability, collect the guest's real name/email/phone before calling, and never invent guest details. It also names the alternative data source (check_availability), so the when-to-use path is unambiguous.

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

All g-guest toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources