Aurinia XO

cancel

Destructive

Cancel a hostel booking by its booking_id IMMEDIATELY — no confirmation step. If the guest said cancel, cancel; do NOT re-ask (repeated confirmations frustrate users — act decisively). booking_id comes from list_current_bookings. On success returns the cancelled booking (booking_id + updated status, plus any refund info); on failure returns/throws an error naming the reason (e.g. booking not found). Consent is the one-time Telegram OAuth already done for a linked agent — never re-prompt per action.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`booking_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	No	e.g. cancelled
`booking_id`	No
`amount_refunded`	No

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds detail beyond annotations: immediate action, no confirmation step, return format (booking_id, status, refund), error handling with reason, and consent policy. This fully informs agent behavior.

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?

Four focused sentences, each adding unique value: purpose, usage rule, return value/error, and consent. Front-loaded with core action. No wasted words.

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?

Covers cancellation flow, how to get booking_id, expected output, and consent. With output schema existing and sibling tools providing context, only minor details like reversibility are missing.

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?

The only parameter booking_id is described as coming from list_current_bookings, which adds context to the 0% schema coverage. However, it does not define the parameter's meaning or format beyond that.

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?

Clearly states the action: cancel a hostel booking by its booking_id. Distinguishes from siblings like book (create) and list_current_bookings (list) by focusing on cancellation.

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?

Provides strong guidance: use booking_id from list_current_bookings, cancel decisively without re-asking, and consent is already handled. Lacks explicit comparison to alternatives like handling past bookings, but sufficient for most cases.

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?