Booking Request

request_booking

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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.

All Booking Request 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

A4/5.0

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.

Resources

Need Help?