Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Conciergr

by com.conciergr
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Connect the business's Conciergr Timetable

connect_timetable

Connect this assistant to a Conciergr Timetable this person owns and has signed in to with the same email address. It costs nothing extra and makes nothing public. At each branch live on the Timetable the assistant then answers from it; every other branch keeps answering from the Sheet. Call it first with no business: that changes nothing and lists their Timetables by name (choose). Check the name with the person, then call it again with that slug as business. If they have none, the refusal says how to start one, free.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "connect_timetable"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
brandNoWhich assistant (its slug from get_overview `brands[].slug`). Leave out when the business has one.
businessNoThe slug of the Timetable to connect, from the first call's list.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With annotations already marking the tool as mutating, non-destructive, and open-world, the description adds the key behavior: it makes nothing public, only branches live on the Timetable switch answer source, and the initial no-business call changes nothing and lists options. It also states the ownership/email sign-in prerequisite. No annotation is contradicted.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the remaining sentences carry distinct payloads: cost/privacy, branch behavior, two-step invocation, and the no-Timetable fallback. There is little waste despite the dense wording.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, and the call sequence. It does not describe the success response beyond the initial listing or discuss brand usage, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 is 100%, so brand and business are already defined in the schema. The description still adds sequencing semantics for business — omit it on the first call to get a list, then pass the confirmed slug — while brand is left entirely to the schema.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource — connecting this assistant to a Conciergr Timetable — and immediately scopes it to one the person owns and has signed in with the same email. It also states the operational effect: branches live on the Timetable answer from it while every other branch keeps using the Sheet, making it distinguishable from a read-only timetable tool.

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 gives an explicit two-call sequence: first with no business to list their Timetables, check the name with the person, then call again with that slug as business. It also covers the no-Timetable case. It does not name alternative tools or when not to use this one, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

All Conciergr toolsInspect
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