Aurinia XO

book

Book beds for a date range at Aurinia XO — you do the booking, never hand the guest a self-service link. Do NOT ask the user to confirm before calling this — just call it; surface a consent link ONLY if the response comes back pending_consent (telegram.linked=false). If the agent is already linked it books immediately with no confirmation (consent is one-time). Do NOT ask the guest for name or contact; identity comes from a one-time Telegram consent. If the response is pending_consent (telegram.linked=false), telegram.consent_url is a one-tap Telegram approve link: OPEN it yourself (open/xdg-open/start) if you run on the user's device, otherwise present it as a single prominent 'Approve in Telegram' link — do NOT tell the guest to book manually. After they tap Approve, retry this call. Consent is one-time (valid ~90 days); later bookings skip it. Once confirmed it returns a HOLD with a payment_url. IMPORTANT: this does NOT finalize the booking — the stay is confirmed only when the guest pays via payment_url before hold_expires_at; otherwise the hold auto-expires. Pass promo_code (e.g. BOT5) for a discount. The door code is delivered to the guest in Telegram after payment (and via list_current_bookings).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`guests`	Yes
`check_in`	Yes	YYYY-MM-DD
`check_out`	Yes	YYYY-MM-DD
`promo_code`	No	Optional promo code, e.g. BOT5 for -5%.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses that the tool does not finalize the booking (returns a hold), that consent is one-time (~90 days), and that the stay is confirmed only upon payment. Adds context beyond annotations such as the pending_consent flow and payment_url handling.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is relatively long but front-loaded with the main purpose and then provides essential workflow details. Every sentence contributes to correct invocation, so the length is justified given the complexity of the consent and payment flow.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the response structure (pending_consent vs hold with payment_url) and the required actions. It covers the entire booking workflow, including consent, payment, and eventual door code delivery via Telegram and list_current_bookings.

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 description coverage is 75% (3 of 4 parameters described). The description adds meaning by explaining that promo_code is optional and gives an example (BOT5), and clarifies that dates are for a range. The extra context about consent and identity not being needed adds value over 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?

The description clearly states 'Book beds for a date range at Aurinia XO', specifying the resource (beds) and action (book). It distinguishes from siblings like cancel, get_availability, and list_bookings by focusing on the booking creation process.

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 instructs to not ask for confirmation before calling, to never hand the guest a self-service link, and details when to present a consent link (only if response has pending_consent). Also advises against asking for guest name/contact and explains the retry flow after consent.

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

All Aurinia XO 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action: book creates a hold, cancel cancels, get_availability checks bed availability, list_current_bookings shows active bookings, and list_past_bookings shows historical ones. There's no overlap in purpose; even the two list tools are clearly separated by time horizon.

Naming Consistency5/5

Names are mostly verb_noun (get_availability, list_current_bookings, list_past_bookings) with simple verbs (book, cancel) that follow a predictable pattern. The convention is consistent and easily inferable, with no mixed styles or ambiguous verbs.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for a hostel booking domain. Each tool covers a core operation (available, book, cancel, list current/past) without redundancy or bloat, fitting the typical 3–15 range perfectly.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the main booking lifecycle: check availability, book, cancel, and list bookings. The only notable gap is the lack of an explicit booking modification tool (e.g., change dates), but this is a minor omission given that cancellation and rebooking are possible. Door code retrieval is handled via list_current_bookings, so no dead ends exist.

Resources

Need Help?