LobbyStack

Get an appointment

get_appointment

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns one appointment by id.

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": {
      "appointment_id": "<appointment_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_appointment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`appointment_id`	Yes	The appointment id (UUID).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Stable identifier (UUID).
`notes`	Yes	Notes on the appointment. The receptionist can read them to a verified caller.
`source`	Yes	Where the booking came from, for example voice, web_chat, dashboard or api.
`status`	Yes
`ends_at`	Yes	ISO 8601 timestamp in UTC.
`staff_id`	Yes	Stable identifier (UUID).
`timezone`	Yes
`starts_at`	Yes	ISO 8601 timestamp in UTC.
`contact_id`	Yes	Stable identifier (UUID).
`created_at`	Yes	ISO 8601 timestamp in UTC.
`service_id`	Yes	Stable identifier (UUID).
`staff_name`	Yes
`updated_at`	Yes	ISO 8601 timestamp in UTC.
`contact_name`	Yes
`service_name`	Yes
`contact_phone`	Yes
`calendar_sync_status`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no error behavior for missing/unknown ids and no note on what the returned appointment contains, even though an output schema exists.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler — the resource and lookup key come first. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves no room for the routing information an agent would benefit from.

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 single-parameter, annotation-covered, output-schema-backed point lookup, the description covers the essentials and needn't explain return values. However, it omits not-found behavior and any routing versus list_appointments, leaving a modest gap for an agent choosing among 17 siblings.

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% and the single parameter's UUID format and pattern are fully specified in the schema. The description's "by id" merely restates it, adding no format, sourcing, or lookup conventions beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Returns one appointment by id" gives a specific verb (returns), resource (appointment), and cardinality (one) with the lookup key (id), which distinguishes it from list_appointments. It stops short of naming siblings explicitly, but the single-record vs list distinction is inferable from the wording.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of list_appointments, search_contacts, or book/reschedule/cancel flows, and no mention of prerequisites or what to do when the id is unknown. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the one-line summary.

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

All LobbyStack 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?