A
licenseNot graded
qualityA
maintenanceEnables AI agents to create cryptographically verifiable receipts of their delegated work, with capabilities for multi-party approval and offline verification.
346
Apache 2.0
Booking Request
Server Details
Self-authenticating booking-request receipt anchored to the Knox chain; never represents a person.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
3 toolslist_represented_agentsAInspect
Enumerate the Bonis Concierge represented-agent roster. Returns slug, name, charter, bureau, archetype, liveness ('live' = verifiable POST endpoint and Knox event-chain integration today / 'charter' = description filed, integration in progress), and capability-page URL for each agent.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| livenessFilter | No | Optional filter on liveness. Default: 'all'. |
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose any behavioral details such as data volume, authentication needs, or rate limits. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.
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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. Every part is necessary, and there is no superfluous information.
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 tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the return fields and filter semantics adequately. It doesn't address pagination or limits, but the tool is likely returning a small roster, so it's acceptable for a list operation.
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 provides a description for the single parameter (livenessFilter), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds value by explaining the meaning of the enum values ('live' and 'charter') in the context of agent status, which helps the agent select the appropriate filter.
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 is used to 'Enumerate the Bonis Concierge represented-agent roster' with a specific verb and resource. It lists the exact fields returned (slug, name, charter, etc.), and the sibling tools are action-oriented (booking), so this read-only listing tool is well-differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. The description simply explains what it returns.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
request_bookingAInspect
Anchor a booking request for a represented Bonis Concierge agent. Returns a self-authenticating booking bundle: Knox anchor record + C2PA-aligned envelope (subset of C2PA 1.4 — adapted for booking events) + FRE 902(13)/(14)-shape representation affidavit. The agency does not adjudicate the merits of any booking, does not guarantee acceptance by the listed agent, does not handle payment under this primitive, and does not represent any natural person. Requires a Knox Bearer API key on the Authorization header — unauthenticated calls are rejected.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brief | Yes | Plain-language description of the booking (10–4000 chars). | |
| notes | No | Optional free-form notes (≤ 2000 chars). | |
| startBy | No | Optional ISO-8601 date or date-time when the booking should begin. | |
| agentSlug | Yes | Roster slug of the listed agent (e.g., 'ofac-sdn-screening', 'content-provenance'). Must match the published Bonis Concierge roster — call list_represented_agents to enumerate. | |
| archetype | No | Optional requested presentation archetype if the listed agent supports multiple. | |
| budgetUsdMax | No | Optional maximum USD budget signal. Discovery field — no payment is collected under this primitive. | |
| contactEmail | No | Optional contact email (hashed before anchoring). Provide at least one of contactEmail or contactKnoxKeyId. | |
| contactKnoxKeyId | No | Optional Knox API key ID. Provide at least one of contactEmail or contactKnoxKeyId. |
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: returns a self-authenticating bundle, does not adjudicate merits, does not guarantee acceptance, does not handle payment, and requires a Knox Bearer API key. This is comprehensive and transparent.
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 front-loaded with the main action and is relatively concise given the complexity. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more succinct without losing information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers intent, limitations, and auth needs well. However, it lacks detail on the return structure beyond high-level components, which is a gap for a tool without output schema.
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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, but it does not detract. It provides context for the overall output but not for individual 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 'anchors a booking request' for a represented agent, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_represented_agents (listing) and verify_booking (verification) by focusing on the creation/request aspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for anchoring a booking request and mentions authentication requirements, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It sets expectations about limitations but lacks full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_bookingAInspect
Verify an anchored booking-request record. Given a SHA-256 anchor hash (the payload_hash from a prior request_booking call), return the anchor record, predecessor hash, sequence number, and timestamp. Public — no authentication required. The verification path is also accessible at GET /api/knox/verify?hash=.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | SHA-256 anchor hash (64 lowercase hex chars). |
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes public, read-only nature and returned fields. No annotations present; description provides minimal behavioral context but lacks details on limits or error conditions.
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?
Three concise sentences: purpose, usage, and public access. Front-loaded with core action. No fluff.
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?
Simple tool with single parameter; description covers input source, returned fields, public nature, and REST endpoint. Adequate for tool selection and invocation.
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 coverage 100%; description adds context by specifying hash is from prior request_booking call and confirms hex format. Exceeds schema-only understanding.
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?
States verb 'verify' and resource 'anchored booking-request record'. Lists returned fields and input hash source. Differentiates from sibling 'request_booking' and 'list_represented_agents'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions public access (no auth needed) and REST endpoint alternative. Does not explicitly state when to use versus siblings, though implication is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Post-quantum, tamper-evident receipts for agent actions. Ed25519 + ML-DSA-65, offline verify.
Privacy-first document verification anchored to the public ledger.
Issue & verify signed (ed25519), hash-chained, timestamped provenance receipts for agent actions.
Read-only gateway for durable agent identity, consent, recognized work, and signed receipts.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceCryptographically anchored, tamper-evident evidence receipts for AI agents — verified run receipts, existence-at-time proofs, and cited answers from an anchored public record. Remote MCP with proof-gated settlement; attests existence and integrity, never truth.
EVIDIQ Notary MCPofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceCryptographic receipt layer for AI inferences. Enables notarization and verification of AI outputs with on-chain proofs via x402 payment.1MIT
evermint-mcpofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceTamper-evident receipts for AI agent actions. The notary layer for agent-to-agent transactions.701MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: listing agents, creating a booking request, and verifying a booking. There is no functional overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow the consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: list_represented_agents, request_booking, verify_booking.
Tool Count4/5
With 3 tools, the set is minimal but well-scoped for a booking request server. Each tool is necessary and there are no redundant tools.
Completeness3/5
The set covers listing agents, requesting bookings, and verifying them, but lacks tools for updating, canceling, or listing bookings, which are notable gaps for a full booking lifecycle.