reschedule_bookingReschedule a booking to a new start time (ISO 8601) and return the result — the invitee is notified. A write. Resolve booking_id via list_bookings first. booking_id and start are required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| start | Yes | New start time, ISO 8601 (e.g. 2026-07-20T15:00:00Z) (required). | |
| booking_id | Yes | Booking id to move, from list_bookings (required). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint false and destructiveHint false. Description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'A write' explicitly confirms mutation, and 'the invitee is notified' reveals a side effect. No contradiction between description and annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is compact and front-loaded, with the core action stated first. Minor redundancy exists: 'booking_id and start are required' duplicates schema, and 'A write.' is terse but still valuable as a safety signal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter write operation with annotations present, the description covers the action, side effect (invitee notification), prerequisite (use list_bookings), and required parameters. Lack of return format is acceptable given no output schema and the simplicity of the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema covers both parameters fully with descriptions for ISO 8601 format and 'from list_bookings' provenance. Description redundantly states 'booking_id and start are required' and repeats the prerequisite, adding little beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Reschedule' and resource 'a booking', specifies the new start time in ISO 8601, mentions returned result and invitee notification. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_booking and list_bookings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context: 'Resolve booking_id via list_bookings first' directs the agent to a sibling tool and defines a prerequisite. It implies use for changing a booking time but does not explicitly exclude cancel_booking or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but the high number (55) and similar prefixes like 'analyze_', 'list_', 'create_' could cause some confusion. However, detailed descriptions help agents differentiate.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_feature, list_tasks). Only minor exceptions like 'whoami' fit a predictable style.
55 tools is well above the typical range for a MCP server. Even for a comprehensive product OS, the count feels excessive and may overwhelm agents.
CRUD operations cover most entities, but missing delete tools (e.g., no delete_feature, delete_task) create minor gaps. Analytics and customer tools are thorough.