A
licenseA
qualityB
maintenanceEnables AI agents to create cryptographically verifiable receipts of their delegated work, with capabilities for multi-party approval and offline verification.
11
60 npm
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 by verifying the domain or GitHub account it belongs to. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Uptime
- 99.8% over 61 days
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-03-26
- URL
TDQS
A4/5.0
Scored across 3 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool addresses a separate step in the workflow: enumerating agents, creating a booking request, and verifying an existing booking. There is no overlap or ambiguity between the three operations.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: list_represented_agents, request_booking, verify_booking. The style is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count4/5
With three tools, the server provides a focused but complete minimal workflow. The count is on the lower end but well-scoped for a booking-request primitive; not thin enough to feel incomplete.
Completeness4/5
The core lifecycle is covered: discover agents, create a booking request, and verify it. Missing operations like update or cancel are not essential given the stated primitive nature and the explicit exclusion of payment/acceptance handling.
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_bookingInspect
Anchor a booking request for a represented Bonis Concierge agent. Returns a 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 | Description of the booking, in your own words (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. |
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.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
1 tool update
- Changed
request_booking1 field changed- changed
Input schema / properties / brief / descriptionPrevious value: -"Plain-language description of the booking (10–4000 chars)."New value: +"Description of the booking, in your own words (10–4000 chars)."
3 tool updates
- First observed
list_represented_agents - First observed
request_booking - First observed
verify_booking
Related MCP Connectors
Post-quantum, tamper-evident receipts for agent actions. Ed25519 + ML-DSA-65, offline verify.
Authorize and prove autonomous x402/AP2 agent payments with cryptographic receipts.
Privacy-first document verification anchored to the public ledger.
Issue & verify signed (ed25519), hash-chained, timestamped provenance receipts for agent actions.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceCryptographically 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
bookingtruthofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to verify travel bookings against supplier-authoritative evidence, returning honest verdicts like confirmed, held, pending, cancelled, or unknown with citable proof packets.MIT
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.