booking
Server Details
Book Houston magician and mentalist Rick Hebert for corporate events, weddings, and parties.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: booking, contact info, and package listing. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (book_event, get_contact, list_packages) using snake_case.
Three tools are appropriate for the narrow domain of booking a single performer. Each is essential and well-scoped.
The set covers the core workflow (learn packages, get contact, book). Missing cancellation or direct availability check, but these are handled manually via the booking request.
Available Tools
3 toolsbook_eventAInspect
Submit a request to book Rick Hebert for an event. This sends the details to Rick, who personally reviews every request and replies (usually within a day) to confirm availability, pricing, and details — it does NOT instantly confirm or hold a date. Collect the contact's name and at least an email or phone number before calling. Rick is based near Houston, TX and travels for the right event.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Full name of the person booking. | |
| No | Contact email address. Provide this and/or a phone number. | ||
| phone | No | Contact phone number. Provide this and/or an email. | |
| format | No | Preferred format, if known: 'Strolling Close-Up', 'The Stand-Up Show', or 'The Full Evening'. See list_packages. Omit if unsure — Rick will recommend. | |
| message | No | Anything else about the event or what they're looking for. | |
| event_city | No | City and/or venue. Rick is based near Houston, TX (Greater Houston: The Woodlands, Sugar Land, Galveston, Clear Lake) and travels for the right event. | |
| event_date | No | Event date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Omit or leave blank if not set yet. | |
| event_time | No | Approximate start time, e.g. '7:00 PM'. | |
| event_type | No | The occasion — e.g. wedding, corporate event, birthday party, holiday party, gala, fundraiser. | |
| guest_count | No | Approximate number of guests, e.g. '50' or '75-100'. | |
| contact_pref | No | How they'd prefer Rick to reach back — e.g. 'email', 'phone', or 'text'. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that the tool sends a request for review, not an instant confirmation, and that Rick personally reviews. Also mentions location/travel. No annotations so description carries full burden, which it meets well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise paragraph of 4-5 sentences, front-loaded with main purpose. Includes necessary usage tips without excessive verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description clarifies expected outcome (not instant, review process). With 11 parameters, it gives a good overview of preconditions and behavioral expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds overall process context but does not significantly augment parameter-specific meanings beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool submits a booking request for Rick Hebert. Distinguishes from siblings (get_contact, list_packages) by being about initiating a booking process.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explains the process (Rick reviews, not instant, replies within a day) and prerequisites (collect contact info). Does not explicitly say when not to use it, but context makes it clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_contactAInspect
Get Rick Hebert's contact details (phone, email) and the area he serves. Use when the user wants to reach Rick directly or asks where he performs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It describes a read operation (getting details) with no indication of side effects, permissions, or rate limits. For a simple data retrieval, this is adequate but could mention whether the data is static or real-time.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, no redundant words, and front-loaded with the action and result. Every sentence contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately tells what the tool returns and when to use it. It could be improved by noting if the data is read-only or if there are any prerequisites, but for a simple lookup it's sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by specifying the content of the response (phone, email, area). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool retrieves contact details (phone, email) and service area for Rick Hebert. The verb 'Get' and resource 'contact details' are specific, and the tool is clearly distinguished from siblings (book_event, list_packages) by its focus on a specific person's contact information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use when the user wants to reach Rick directly or asks where he performs.' This clearly defines the context for invoking this tool, and the sibling tools cover different intents (booking, listing packages), so no when-not-to-use is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_packagesAInspect
List Rick Hebert's three booking formats (each custom-quoted): Strolling Close-Up, The Stand-Up Show, and The Full Evening. Use to help a user choose a format before booking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read-only list operation with no side effects. It adds the detail that each format is 'custom-quoted', which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention idempotency or rate limits, but for a simple list tool this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the key information, and contains no extraneous words. Every sentence serves a purpose: listing the formats and explaining usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains what the tool lists and why to use it, but it does not describe the output format. Given no output schema exists, the description could be more complete by stating the return structure. However, for a simple list of three items, the completeness is borderline adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters (schema coverage 100% empty). The description adds no parameter information, but since there are none, it does not need to. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and no additional value is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states it lists three specific booking formats (Strolling Close-Up, The Stand-Up Show, The Full Evening) and clearly names each one. This distinguishes it from sibling tools 'book_event' and 'get_contact', which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says 'Use to help a user choose a format before booking', which provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for this simple case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!