Skip to main content
Glama

AdvocateMCP

by com.advocatemcp

Get Business Availability

get_availability
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return 30-minute availability windows for a business, derived from its configured operating hours with already-booked windows removed. Use this to show a user when a business can actually be booked. Windows held by a confirmed booking are never returned. Note that an unconfirmed offer does NOT withhold a window — two callers may hold overlapping offers and race to confirm_booking, so a returned window can still be lost to whoever confirms first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesBusiness slug identifier
window_endNoUnix seconds (absolute instant; default now + 7 days). See window_start on reading the response's `timezone`.
window_startNoUnix seconds (absolute instant; default now). The business's own timezone is not an input — it is returned as `timezone` in the response. To target a local phrase like "Tuesday afternoon", request a generously wide window and filter the returned slots using that `timezone`.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slotsYes
sourceYes
timezoneYes
generated_atYes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description explains key behaviors beyond the annotations: availability is derived from operating hours, confirmed bookings are excluded, unconfirmed offers do not withhold windows, and there is a race condition warning. This provides substantial transparency about the tool's runtime behavior, going beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint.

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 concise, using two sentences plus a note. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds a critical behavioral caveat without redundancy or fluff. The structure is clear and efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema (not detailed here) and clear sibling tools, the description is sufficient to understand the tool's role. It covers the main functionality and important edge cases (race condition). It does not mention potential errors or response format, but the overall context makes it reasonably complete, warranting a 4 rather than 5.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters (slug, window_start, window_end) with 100% coverage. The description adds context that windows are 30-minute and derived from operating hours, which implicitly clarifies parameter usage but does not delve into specific parameter semantics beyond the schema. This is above the baseline of 3 because the description enriches the understanding of the time window parameters.

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 30-minute availability windows for a business, derived from operating hours minus booked windows, and explicitly notes it is for showing when a business can be booked. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like reserve_slot or confirm_booking.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives a direct usage instruction ('Use this to show a user when a business can actually be booked') and includes an important caveat about race conditions with unconfirmed offers. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like search_businesses or list_services, so it's slightly below a 5.

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

All AdvocateMCP toolsInspect
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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action or resource: searching, quoting, reserving, confirming, payment handoff, callback, subscription, and business queries. Even related tools like reserve_slot and confirm_booking have clearly separated roles (holding vs. claiming). No overlapping purposes or ambiguous boundaries.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., search_businesses, get_quote, reserve_slot, confirm_booking). The verbs are varied but each is intuitive and fits the action. There are no mixed naming conventions or vague verb choices.

Tool Count5/5

13 tools cover the core booking and business-intelligence workflow without redundancy. The scope is well-defined—discovery, pricing, reservation, confirmation, payment, handoff, and subscription—so each tool earns its place. Not too thin, not overloaded.

Completeness3/5

The surface covers search, pricing, reservation, confirmation, payment, and handoff, but missing explicit cancellation or modification tools for bookings. A user asking to cancel a reservation would have no direct tool; get_cancellation_policy only provides text. Also no way to list a customer's existing bookings. This leaves notable gaps for a booking-focused server.

Resources