HireLocksmiths — Locksmith Finder

book_job

Create a booking request with a specific locksmith (firmer than request_quote).

ONLY call when the user wants to book a job — it sends a real request. Provide a
phone (preferred) or email. `preferred_time` is the requested window, e.g.
"today 3-5pm". This is a booking REQUEST, not a guaranteed appointment; the
locksmith confirms the time, price, and ETA. Returns a reference id (HL-####).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`zip`	No
`name`	Yes
`email`	No
`phone`	No
`details`	No
`service`	No	lockout
`urgency`	No
`locksmith_id`	Yes
`preferred_time`	No

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains behavioral traits: it's a booking REQUEST (not guaranteed), the locksmith confirms time/price/ETA, and returns a reference ID (HL-####). This reveals the non-guaranteed nature and output format, though it does not mention idempotency or error conditions.

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 description is concise at 5 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage, parameter hints, behavior, and return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, achieving clear and efficient communication.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It covers only a few parameters and does not explain required fields, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., needing a selected locksmith). The agent would be underinformed for correct usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It explains 'preferred_time' format and that phone (preferred) or email should be provided. However, only 3 of 9 parameters are addressed; required parameters like 'locksmith_id' and 'name' are not explained, leaving significant gaps.

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 clearly states the tool creates a booking request with a specific locksmith, specifying the action ('Create a booking request') and the resource ('with a specific locksmith'). It distinguishes from sibling 'request_quote' by saying 'firmer than request_quote', clarifying that this tool results in a real booking rather than a quote.

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?

The description explicitly says 'ONLY call when the user wants to book a job — it sends a real request', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. It also contrasts with 'request_quote' implicitly, indicating that this tool is for actual booking not quoting.

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

All HireLocksmiths — Locksmith Finder 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

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Some tools overlap: check_availability and get_eta return nearly identical coverage info, and book_job/request_quote serve similar but distinct purposes. Descriptions help differentiate, but ambiguity remains.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., book_job, check_availability, get_eta), making them predictable and easy to understand.

Tool Count5/5

With 6 tools covering search, profile, availability, quotes, and booking, the count is well-scoped for a locksmith finder service without being excessive or insufficient.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows (search, view profile, check availability, request quote, book) are covered. Missing features like cancel/update bookings are minor but notable gaps.

Resources

Need Help?