Booking Request

request_booking

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.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "agentSlug": "<agentSlug>",
      "brief": "<brief>"
    },
    "name": "request_booking"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 13, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / brief / description

Previous value: -"Plain-language description of the booking (10–4000 chars)."New value: +"Description of the booking, in your own words (10–4000 chars)."

First observedJun 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states the auth requirement (Knox Bearer key, unauthenticated calls rejected), what the tool produces (anchor record + C2PA-aligned envelope + FRE 902(13)/(14)-shape affidavit), and four explicit non-guarantees. It does not disclose idempotency, duplicate handling, or rate limits, which matters for an anchoring/write primitive.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then constraints, then auth. The disclaimer sentence is long but each clause (no adjudication, no acceptance guarantee, no payment, no natural-person representation) carries real decision value for an agent. Slightly dense but no dead weight.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the three components of the returned bundle, which is genuinely useful. Auth and scope limits are covered. Remaining gaps are failure modes and idempotency/retry behavior for what is effectively an immutable anchoring operation.

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% across all 8 parameters, so the schema already documents brief, agentSlug, archetype enum, budgetUsdMax, and contact fields. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('Anchor a booking request for a represented Bonis Concierge agent') and enumerates the returned bundle, which clearly separates it from verify_booking. However, it never names a sibling tool, so differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'request' and by the scope disclaimers (no payment, no adjudication), but there is no explicit 'use this when X, use verify_booking when Y' guidance. The routing hint to list_represented_agents lives in the schema, not the description.

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

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.

Resources

Need Help?