TempGuru Event Staffing

Check Availability

check_availability

Read-only

Return tier-based lead-time guidance for an event date and configured market. Use for 'What's the typical lead time for brand ambassadors in [city]?' or 'Is this date inside the usual planning window?'. This is not a real-time inventory or order-coverage check: a TempGuru coordinator confirms coverage and final lead time for the specific order after buyer submission. DO NOT use for cost questions (use get_role_pricing) and never present the result as a reservation. check_availability(date='2026-08-14', city='Dallas') ; check_availability(date='2026-07-01', city='Boston', role='brand-ambassadors', count=6) Even a 'rush' window is worth submitting, same-week backfills exist in select markets.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`city`	Yes	City name (e.g., 'Boston') or slug (e.g., 'boston-event-staffing').
`date`	Yes	Event date as YYYY-MM-DD; legacy recognizable dates are still accepted.
`role`	No	Optional role name or slug to include rate context.
`count`	No	Optional headcount for the event.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`city`	No
`role`	No	Rate context when a role was provided; null otherwise.
`count`	No	Echo of the requested headcount.
`error`	No	Present when the date could not be parsed.
`notes`	No
`state`	No
`in_past`	No	True when the requested date is already in the past — confirm the date before planning.
`message`	No	Present when city_found is false.
`city_tier`	No	Market tier: hub = 25 major metros, mid = 128 secondary markets, small = 192 tertiary markets.
`requested`	No	Echo of the unmatched city input.
`city_found`	Yes	false = city did not match the configured catalog (see message); true = planning guidance below, not confirmed coverage.
`event_date`	No	Normalized ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD).
`role_found`	No	null = no role requested; false = the requested role didn't match the catalog (see notes).
`suggestion`	No	Closest known city/role for a miss. Confirm with the user before using it; do not auto-apply.
`catalog_match`	No
`recommendation`	No	Lead-time guidance, NOT a reservation. Even rush is worth submitting.
`role_suggestion`	No	Closest known city/role for a miss. Confirm with the user before using it; do not auto-apply.
`days_until_event`	No
`typical_lead_time_hours`	No
`coverage_confirmation_required`	No

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds context that this is not real-time and that a coordinator must confirm coverage. It also notes same-week backfills exist, giving useful nuance beyond annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well-structured with definition, use cases, exclusions, examples, and hints. Each sentence serves a purpose—no fluff—and the front-loading is effective.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the output schema exists and annotations provide safety hints, the description covers the essential context: purpose, limitations, non-reservation assurance, and edge cases. It is comprehensive for the tool's complexity.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value through example calls showing parameter combinations and positional usage, which helps apply the schema correctly.

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 clearly states the tool returns tier-based lead-time guidance for an event date and market, using specific verbs and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by saying it is not a real-time inventory check and directing cost questions to get_role_pricing.

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?

Provides explicit use cases ('What's the typical lead time...') and exclusions ('DO NOT use for cost questions, use get_role_pricing'), plus a warning not to present results as a reservation. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All TempGuru Event Staffing 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

A4.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with explicit do-not-use cross-references. Pricing tools (get_rate_benchmark vs get_role_pricing) are carefully separated, and plan_staffing vs check_availability serve different granularity needs.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_cities, plan_staffing, request_quote). The verbs are simple and descriptive, with no mixed casing or stylistic inconsistencies.

Tool Count5/5

12 tools is well-scoped for an event staffing domain covering availability, pricing, roles, compliance, planning, persistence, and quote workflows. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The workflow is well-covered: plan_staffing creates plans, save/get manage persistence, request_quote hands off to a form, and get_quote_status tracks references. Minor gaps exist like lack of plan update/delete and quote status being a stub, but core operations are complete.

Check Availability

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources