Advocate

Confirm Booking

confirm_booking

Destructive

Confirm a reservation made with reserve_slot. Present the returned stored booking_details to the customer and relay only the customer-supplied 6-digit code received at their email or phone; never generate, guess, or fetch it. For an active configured calendar, a verified code attempts a direct commit to the selected calendar with no owner approval. booking_pending means the provider outcome is uncertain; repeat confirm_booking later to check the stored outcome, but it never retries a provider write automatically. A paid booking (reserve_slot returned payment.required = true) has no code: this answers payment_required — pay it with create_booking_payment_link — or payment_in_flight while its payment is settling.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	Yes	The customer-supplied 6-digit confirmation code received at their own email or SMS contact. Relay only that supplied code; never generate, guess, or fetch it.
`slug`	Yes	Business slug identifier
`reservation_id`	Yes	The reservation id returned by reserve_slot
`booking_authorization`	No	For provider invitations, relay the reserved reference only after the customer accepts the exact stored summary and notification effects; required for Calendly.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	Yes	'confirmed': a booking was committed to the selected configured calendar, or a historical legacy reservation was confirmed. 'booking_pending': the provider outcome is unresolved; do not create another booking or seek owner approval — repeat confirm_booking later to read the stored outcome. 'pending_merchant': a historical merchant-review reservation awaits a business decision — see message. 'already_confirmed': this reservation was confirmed earlier (safe replay).
`message`	No	Optional customer-facing status detail to relay
`cancel_token`	No	Present once, on the first confirmation of a booking on the business's Advocate calendar. Pass it to cancel_booking if the customer cancels. A capability for this booking: never pass it to another party.
`reservation_id`	Yes
`provider_confirmation`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 5, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / cancel_token

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Present once, on the first confirmation of a booking on the business's Advocate calendar. Pass it to cancel_booking if the customer cancels. A capability for this booking: never pass it to another party.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 28, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / booking_authorization

Added value: +{
+  "description": "For provider invitations, relay the reserved reference only after the customer accepts the exact stored summary and notification effects; required for Calendly.",
+  "properties": {
+    "accepted": {
+      "const": true,
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "reference": {
+      "format": "uuid",
+      "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "reference",
+    "accepted"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / provider_confirmation

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "booking_id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "conference_state": {
+      "enum": [
+        "pending",
+        "ready",
+        "unavailable"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "provider": {
+      "const": "calendly",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "provider",
+    "booking_id",
+    "conference_state"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 5, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / code / description

Previous value: -"The 6-digit confirmation code the customer received at their contact (email or SMS) and read back to the agent"New value: +"The customer-supplied 6-digit confirmation code received at their own email or SMS contact. Relay only that supplied code; never generate, guess, or fetch it."

changedOutput schema / properties / message / description

Previous value: -"Present with pending_merchant: customer-facing text to relay"New value: +"Optional customer-facing status detail to relay"

changedOutput schema / properties / status / description

Previous value: -"'confirmed': the code was right and the slot is now exclusively held. 'pending_merchant': the code was right; the business must accept within 24 hours and may decline — see message. 'already_confirmed': this reservation was confirmed earlier (safe replay)."New value: +"'confirmed': a booking was committed to the selected configured calendar, or a historical legacy reservation was confirmed. 'booking_pending': the provider outcome is unresolved; do not create another booking or seek owner approval — repeat confirm_booking later to read the stored outcome. 'pending_merchant': a historical merchant-review reservation awaits a business decision — see message. 'already_confirmed': this reservation was confirmed earlier (safe replay)."

Changed1 schema field changedSep 4, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "message": {
+      "description": "Present with pending_merchant: customer-facing text to relay",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "reservation_id": {
+      "format": "uuid",
+      "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "'confirmed': the code was right and the slot is now exclusively held. 'pending_merchant': the code was right; the business must accept within 24 hours and may decline — see message. 'already_confirmed': this reservation was confirmed earlier (safe replay).",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status",
+    "reservation_id"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedAug 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=true, openWorld=true, idempotent=false) it discloses the most important consequence: with an active configured calendar a verified code commits directly with no owner approval. It also explains that booking_pending is an uncertain provider outcome, that repeated calls check stored state and never auto-retry the provider write, and that the code must never be generated or fetched. Remaining gap: it does not explicitly address the booking_authorization parameter's acceptance precondition here, which appears only in the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the verification rule, then failure modes in descending importance. Word-dense but every sentence carries distinct operational content — no restatement of the name, title, or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described; the description instead covers the things structured fields cannot: commit authority, the uncertain-outcome state, non-retry semantics, and the paid-booking branch. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this safely is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by constraining `code` to a customer-supplied 6-digit value from their email/phone and by explaining that paid bookings have no code at all — a case the schema pattern alone cannot convey. It says nothing about the optional `booking_authorization` object or `slug`, leaving those to the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Confirm a reservation made with reserve_slot') and explicitly ties the input to the sibling that produced it, so an agent can separate it from cancel_booking or reserve_slot without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use routing: for a booking_pending state it says to repeat this call later, and for a paid booking (payment.required = true) with no code it directs the agent to create_booking_payment_link instead. Alternatives and their triggering conditions are named, not implied.

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

All Advocate tools Inspect

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

Need Help?