Conciergr Timetable

Add a trial session

add_trial_session

A separate trial event on one date that is not part of a weekly class: an open house, an assessment day.

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": {
      "branch_id": "<branch_id>",
      "date": "<date>",
      "start": "<start>",
      "end": "<end>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "add_trial_session"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`end`	Yes	End, 24-hour HH:MM, e.g. 16:30.
`date`	Yes	Its date, YYYY-MM-DD, in the business's own time zone.
`start`	Yes	Start, 24-hour HH:MM, e.g. 16:30.
`title`	Yes	e.g. Open House, up to 120 characters.
`capacity`	No	Places; null for no limit.
`branch_id`	Yes	The branch.
`level_ids`	No	Levels it is for.
`notice_days`	No	Days of notice a booking needs (0 to 90).
`subject_ids`	No	Subjects it is for.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond the concept definition: no prerequisites (must the branch be live?), no side effects, no mention of conflicts with existing sessions, and no note about what is returned. The only behavioral hint is that the created entity is non-recurring.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler that conveys the domain concept efficiently. It is a sentence fragment without a verb, which costs a point on structural clarity, but nothing is redundant.

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?

For a 9-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description establishes what the entity is but leaves the agent guessing about creation semantics and results. Annotations carry the safety profile, so this is adequate rather than deficient, but it does not fully cover the tool's complexity.

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 every one of the 9 parameters is already documented in the schema, and the description adds no format, range, or relationship details. The 'on one date' phrasing lightly reinforces that date is a single occurrence rather than a recurrence, but that is marginal over the schema baseline.

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 defines the resource precisely — a one-off trial event (open house, assessment day) — and implicitly distinguishes it from recurring weekly classes, which maps cleanly onto the add_classes sibling. It lacks an explicit verb ('creates/adds'), so the action itself comes only from the name and title, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Saying it is 'not part of a weekly class' implies the alternative (add_classes) but never states the condition explicitly or names the sibling. The agent must infer that recurring schedules go elsewhere; there are no exclusions or prerequisites spelled out.

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

All Conciergr Timetable 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?