Skip to main content
Glama

Set up a booking page

booking_page_set
DestructiveIdempotent

Set one of the person's permanent booking pages, named by the name it answers at on this site: the one they hold by that name changes in the fields given alone, newName moving it to a new address while its old one answers nothing; a name they hold no page by adds a page, which needs subject and stays until the account goes. Anyone opening a page, with no account, sees up to 20 times free in every calendar within the person's working hours - Monday to Friday 09:00-17:00 where they stored none - and every other preference, spread across the coming 14 days, each day's preferred times first, in their own time zone, and books one by giving a name and address, in the calendar the person named to receive bookings; a time is booked once across all their pages. The page a guest opens names nobody but the meeting, so put the person's own name in subject, e.g. Intro call with Sam Lee. An event holds its time as its provider's own free/busy shows it: on Google unless shown as available or declined - an invitation not yet answered or answered maybe included - and on Outlook only when shown busy or away, so an Outlook tentative answer leaves its time free; a cancelled event holds none.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe page's name in its address: 3 to 40 lowercase letters, digits and hyphens.
minutesNoMeeting length in minutes; for a new page the stored one where omitted.
newNameNoA new name for the page named, which its address then carries.
subjectNoThe meeting's name, as the guest reads it; a new page needs it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description substantiates these: newName moves the page to a new address while 'its old one answers nothing', fields not given are left alone (idempotent partial update), and a page persists 'until the account goes'. It also discloses substantial downstream behavior (booked-once-per-time, provider free/busy rules). It stops short of stating permissions or rate limits, so not a 5.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is one long, clause-dense run-on mixing upsert rules, guest booking behavior, timezone handling, and provider free/busy semantics. Key operational facts are not front-loaded and the archaic style ('answers nothing', 'where they stored none') impedes parsing rather than aiding it.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given a mutation tool with 4 params and no output schema, the description does cover creation vs. update, guest booking constraints, and free/busy rules reasonably thoroughly. It omits return values and permission requirements, and its density means an agent may miss details it does contain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: newName relocates the address and deactivates the old one, and subject should carry the person's own name (e.g. 'Intro call with Sam Lee') because the public page names nobody. That is genuine semantic guidance not present in the field descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb 'Set' and resource 'booking page' are present, and the description does convey upsert semantics (update by existing name, add otherwise). However, the purpose is buried in indirect phrasing like 'named by the name it answers at on this site', which forces the agent to decode the sentence to learn it creates OR modifies a page. It is distinguishable from siblings only after effort.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as booking_links_create or polls_create. The description describes effects and guest-facing behavior but never says under which circumstances an agent should choose this tool over a sibling, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources