check_availabilityConsulta horarios disponibles para agendar una reunion de 30 minutos con Alfabot. Usar el resultado (no inventar horarios) antes de llamar a book_meeting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Cantidad de dias hacia adelante a consultar |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It indicates a read-only lookup ('Consulta horarios disponibles') and warns against inventing slots, which implies dynamic data. However, it does not disclose validity windows, timezone behavior, or any constraints on the returned availability.
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?
Two short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the critical usage rule stated immediately after. There is no filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.
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 simple one-parameter lookup tool, the description provides the essential context: what to query, the meeting duration, and how to use the result. It does not describe the output format, but given the minimal complexity and the presence of a fully documented schema, this is a minor gap rather than a blocking issue.
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 only parameter, 'days', is fully documented in the schema with a description and valid range, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action, 'Consulta horarios disponibles', with a clear object: available slots for a 30-minute meeting with Alfabot. It distinguishes itself from book_meeting by positioning itself as a prerequisite step, so an agent can clearly tell what this tool does.
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 gives explicit usage guidance: use the result before calling book_meeting and do not invent schedules. It does not mention exclusions relative to get_plans, but the core workflow sequencing is clear enough to guide correct invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.