Skip to main content
Glama

mentoring-inquiry-builder

by coach.marian
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check whether the session was actually booked

check_booking
Read-onlyIdempotent

Confirms, from the CRM rather than from what the visitor says, whether their booking landed. Call it after handing over a booking link and the visitor says they have booked — a booking is only real once Reclaim's webhook has written it, which takes a few seconds. Returns the pipeline stage and whether the paid first session is on the board. If it says not yet, wait a moment and check once more before telling them something is wrong; if it is still not there, say so honestly and offer to have Marian follow up rather than claiming success.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailNoRequired. The email the visitor booked with
contextNoOptional. A short description of your goal and why you are calling this tool. Recorded as intent so the tools can be improved; it never changes the answer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / context / description
      Previous value: -"Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): \"Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization.\""New value: +"Optional. A short description of your goal and why you are calling this tool. Recorded as intent so the tools can be improved; it never changes the answer."
    • changedInput schema / properties / email / description
      Previous value: -"The email the visitor booked with"New value: +"Required. The email the visitor booked with"
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "email",
-  "context"
-]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, but the description adds material behavior: the few-second webhook write latency, the two-field return (pipeline stage, whether the paid first session is on the board), and a retry/escalation policy. This is context the annotations cannot express.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the trigger condition, then the failure-handling rule. No filler; each sentence carries distinct, load-bearing information.

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?

No output schema, yet the description explains what comes back and how to interpret and act on each outcome, including the timing caveat and the honest-failure fallback. An agent has everything needed to call and use the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (email, context) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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: it confirms from the CRM (not from the visitor's claim) whether a booking landed. The framing 'a booking is only real once Reclaim's webhook has written it' distinguishes this verification tool from the booking siblings without ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it ('after handing over a booking link and the visitor says they have booked') and what to do on a negative result: wait and re-check once, and if still absent, escalate to Marian rather than claim success. This is fully actionable routing guidance.

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

All mentoring-inquiry-builder 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