get_availabilityNext open 30-minute discovery-call slots on the Cuvo team's calendar, in the user's timezone. Call before offering any times; returns each slot's startIso and human label.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timezone | No | IANA timezone of the user, e.g. "America/New_York". Defaults to America/New_York. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context beyond that: it returns live calendar slots, is timezone-aware, and provides one each slot's startIso and human label. This is meaningful behavioral detail beyond what annotations provide.
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 definition is two tight sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and scope, and the second adds a clear usage directive and return-value details. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition.
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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it returns, when to call it, and the dynamic nature of the data. The main omission is the slot count limit or behavior when a calendar has no free slots, but these are minor gaps.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single optional timezone parameter, and the schema already explains the format and default. The tool description only mentions 'in the user's timezone' indirectly, adding no new parameter semantics, so the baseline 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?
Description clearly states the action (get next open 30-minute discovery-call slots), the resource (the Cuvo team's calendar), and the relevant scope (in the user's timezone). It distinguishes itself from siblings like book_discovery_call by the 'Call before offering any times' instruction, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 gives an explicit usage rule: 'Call before offering any times.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly call out alternatives or when-not-to-use it, so it falls short of a full 5.
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.
Each tool maps to a distinct resource or action: content retrieval (get_article, get_comparison, get_overview, get_pricing), list indices (list_articles, list_comparisons), and scheduling actions (get_availability, book_discovery_call, request_callback). The only near-overlap, book_discovery_call versus request_callback, is clearly separated by their descriptions and required inputs.
All tool names follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_* for singular resources, list_* for collection indices, and book_*/request_* for conversion actions. The naming style is consistent and the verb family matches the tool's role.
Nine tools is a well-scoped size for this server: individual content pages, content lists, and call-booking actions each earn their place. There is no redundancy or sprawl.
The tool surface covers the full website and lead-gen workflow: users can discover content, retrieve full pages, check availability, book a discovery call, or request a callback. The content tools feed directly into their paired retrieval tools, and the scheduling tools cover the expected alternatives.