HemmaBo Host Booking Engine

hemmabo_booking_checkout

Create a fallback non-VRP booking and return a host-configured Stripe checkout URL. Use only after explicit user confirmation when no signed VRP direct_booking_url is available; when get_verified_stay_offer returns one, route the guest there instead. Use hemmabo_booking_create to record a pending booking without collecting payment yet.

Behavior: existing bookings are never modified — availability is checked and dates briefly locked first; conflicts fail before anything is created or charged. Success creates exactly one pending booking and one Stripe Checkout Session on the host's connected account, returning paymentUrl, reservationId, and a one-time guestToken (required for status/cancel/reschedule). Only the Stripe webhook confirms the booking; unpaid pending bookings expire automatically. Not idempotent — check hemmabo_booking_status before retrying.

Params: pass quoteId only for the exact propertyId/dates/guests locked by hemmabo_booking_negotiate (valid 15 min); omit to price fresh. channel selects which locked total is used; paymentMode changes only the handoff form, never the price.

Requires Authorization: Bearer token (MCP_API_KEY or OAuth); rate-limited per token.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`guests`	Yes	Total number of guests as integer >= 1 (e.g. 4).
`channel`	No	Pricing channel selector. 'federation' (default for agent flows): direct host-source total. 'public': standard website rate without agent channel pricing. Omit to use federation.
`checkIn`	Yes	Arrival date in ISO 8601 calendar format YYYY-MM-DD (e.g. '2026-07-15'). Must be today or later in the property's timezone. Must be strictly before checkOut; together they define the stay length used for pricing and availability.
`quoteId`	No	Quote ID string from hemmabo_booking_negotiate (e.g. 'q_abc123'). Optional — omit to calculate a fresh host-source price at checkout. Provide when the guest locked a price within the 15-minute quote window.
`checkOut`	Yes	Departure date in ISO 8601 calendar format YYYY-MM-DD (e.g. '2026-07-22'). Must be strictly after checkIn on the same calendar. The guest does not stay the departure night.
`guestName`	Yes	Primary guest full name as plain text (e.g. 'Anna Svensson'). Stored on the booking for host confirmation; use the name the guest provided.
`guestEmail`	Yes	Primary guest email in RFC 5322 format (e.g. 'anna@example.com'). Used for booking confirmation and host contact; must be deliverable.
`guestPhone`	No	Primary guest phone in E.164 format with country code (e.g. '+46701234567'). Optional; omit when unknown. Recommended for check-in coordination.
`propertyId`	Yes	Stable property UUID from hemmabo_search_properties (e.g. '550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000'). Pass the exact UUID string — never a property name, host domain, or booking URL.
`paymentMode`	No	Stripe payment flow. 'checkout_session' (default): returns a browser redirect URL. 'payment_intent': returns client_secret for embedded/agentic payment integrations. Omit to use checkout_session.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mpp`	No	Present when paymentMode='payment_intent'.
`error`	No	Present only when isError=true.
`guests`	No
`nights`	No
`status`	No	Booking status (typically 'pending' until payment succeeds).
`checkIn`	No
`checkOut`	No
`currency`	Yes
`createdAt`	No
`guestToken`	No	Per-booking secret (guest_token) for this booking. Present it back as guestToken on hemmabo_booking_status / hemmabo_booking_cancel / hemmabo_booking_reschedule to view or modify this booking; a Bearer token alone is not sufficient. Store it securely and do not show it to the guest.
`paymentUrl`	No	Stripe Checkout redirect URL.
`propertyId`	No
`totalPrice`	Yes	Final total charged (or to be charged), in minor currency units.
`payment_modes`	No	Supported payment modes.
`reservationId`	Yes	Booking UUID. Use for subsequent status/cancel/reschedule calls.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description richly complements the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) with concrete behavior: 'existing bookings are never modified — availability is checked and dates briefly locked first; conflicts fail before anything is created or charged.' It also discloses lifecycle details (webhook confirmation, auto-expiry, one-time guestToken) and auth/rate-limit requirements, going well beyond what annotations alone convey. No contradiction found.

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 structured into a focused intro, behavior paragraph, and param notes. Every sentence carries information (auth, idempotency, fallback logic) without redundancy. It is moderately long but economically written, with the core purpose and usage up front. Slightly dense, but not padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex 10-param mutation tool with output schema and annotations present, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, fallback routing, behavior (locking, conflict handling), return values (paymentUrl, reservationId, guestToken), confirmation mechanism (webhook), expiry, idempotency, auth, and rate limits. Nothing an agent needs to decide or invoke correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents parameters. The description adds meaningful context for key params: quoteId (15-min validity, 'pass quoteId only for the exact propertyId/dates/guests locked'), channel (selects which locked total is used), paymentMode (changes only the handoff form, never price), and propertyId (guidance to pass exact UUID, never a name/URL). This enriches semantics beyond schema descriptions, though not every parameter gets extra treatment.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a fallback non-VRP booking and return a host-configured Stripe checkout URL.' It explicitly contrasts with sibling tools, naming get_verified_stay_offer and hemmabo_booking_create as alternatives, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use: 'Use only after explicit user confirmation when no signed VRP direct_booking_url is available' and directs to alternatives ('when get_verified_stay_offer returns one, route the guest there instead'). Also gives a retry caveat ('Not idempotent — check hemmabo_booking_status before retrying'), covering both selection and operational guidance.

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

All HemmaBo Host Booking Engine 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

A4.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are cleanly separated by lifecycle stage (search, availability, quote, lock, checkout, status, cancel, reschedule), but get_verified_stay_offer, hemmabo_booking_quote, and hemmabo_booking_negotiate all touch pricing and could be confused in a quick selection. The descriptions do a strong job of disambiguating them, so only one or two pairs are genuinely ambiguous.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority follow a consistent hemmabo_<domain>_<action> pattern with snake_case throughout. Minor deviations exist: hemmabo_booking_status is a noun rather than a verb, and get_verified_stay_offer / verify_vacation_rental_node break the hemmabo_ prefix convention.

Tool Count5/5

13 tools is well within the ideal range for a booking engine. Each tool maps to a distinct step in the guest journey or host onboarding flow, and none feel redundant or purely decorative.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full guest lifecycle: discovery, availability, pricing, price locking, checkout, pending booking creation, status lookup, cancellation, and rescheduling. Host-side onboarding is also represented, and the VRP verification/offer tools complete the trust and signed-offer path without leaving obvious dead ends.

hemmabo_booking_checkout

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources