Bandago Van Rentals

get_reservation_link

Generate a link to start a reservation on Bandago's website with dates and locations pre-filled. The customer will choose their vehicle and complete the booking on the website.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`end_city`	No	2-letter return location code. Defaults to start_city if not specified (round-trip).
`end_date`	Yes	Rental end date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`end_time`	No	Return time in 24hr format without colon (e.g., '1000' for 10:00 AM, '1400' for 2:00 PM). Defaults to start_time. Valid values: 0900, 0930, 1000, 1030, 1100, 1130, 1200, 1230, 1300, 1330, 1400, 1430, 1500, 1530, 1600, 1630.
`rate_code`	No	Filter to a specific vehicle type (e.g., 'Ford Transit', 'Sprinter'). When provided, only this vehicle will be shown on the booking page.
`start_city`	Yes	2-letter pickup location code (e.g., 'LA', 'NA', 'SF')
`start_date`	Yes	Rental start date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`start_time`	No	Pickup time in 24hr format without colon (e.g., '1000' for 10:00 AM, '1400' for 2:00 PM). Defaults to '1000'. Valid values: 0900, 0930, 1000, 1030, 1100, 1130, 1200, 1230, 1300, 1330, 1400, 1430, 1500, 1530, 1600, 1630.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool only generates a link, not a booking, and that the customer completes the booking on the website. This is a critical behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state whether any reservation is created immediately or provide other edge-case details.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff, front-loaded with the primary action. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description explains the tool's purpose, what the customer does, and implicitly indicates the return type (a link). Given no output schema, it does not detail the exact return format, but the description is adequate for understanding the tool's place in the workflow.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. It only refers to 'dates and locations' which maps to some parameters, but does not enhance schema knowledge.

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's function: 'Generate a link to start a reservation on Bandago's website with dates and locations pre-filled.' This uses a specific verb ('generate') and identifies the resource (reservation link), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like check_availability or email_quote.

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 provides clear context: this tool is used to generate a link for the customer to self-complete booking. It implies usage (when you need to provide a booking link) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The sentence 'The customer will choose their vehicle and complete the booking on the website' clarifies the intended workflow.

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

All Bandago Van Rentals 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action: availability, quoting, coverage, reservation lookup, link generation, locations, and vehicle types. There is no meaningful overlap that could cause an agent to select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase snake_case (check_, email_, explain_, get_, list_). The convention is uniform across the set.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is well-scoped for a rental information and assistance server. Each tool serves a clear purpose and the count is within the ideal range for a domain-specific MCP.

Completeness2/5

The set has significant gaps: email_quote references a 'saved rate quote' but there is no save_quote tool to create one, and get_my_reservation mentions an admin lookup tool that isn't present. This creates dead ends and will cause agent failures in follow-through workflows.

Resources

Need Help?