RooQuiz

get_booking_availability

Read-only

Read the current team's bookable time slots in a date range, computed from the team's weekly booking rules minus what is already taken. Returns enabled:false when the team has booking switched off or the plan does not include it. Pass bookingId to get the slots for rescheduling that booking (its own slot is not counted as taken) — always call this before reschedule_booking, since a start time outside the available slots is rejected. The range is clamped server-side if you ask for too many days.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`toDate`	Yes	Range end (exclusive), ISO datetime
`fromDate`	Yes	Range start, ISO datetime
`bookingId`	No	Optional: compute availability for rescheduling this booking, excluding the slot it currently occupies. Omit to see availability for the team as a whole.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slots`	No	Bookable start times as ISO datetimes — reschedule_booking only accepts one of these
`enabled`	No	false when the team has booking off or the plan does not include it
`timezone`	No	The team's booking timezone
`slotSeats`	No	Per-slot capacity
`requireApproval`	No	Whether new requests need approval (returned when booking is off)
`slotDurationMinutes`	No	Length of one slot

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing behavioral nuances: returned availability is computed from weekly rules minus taken slots, enabled:false appears when booking is off or plan doesn't include it, the booking's own slot is excluded when rescheduling, and server-side clamping of the date range. This is detailed and non-obvious behavioral context.

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?

Every sentence adds relevant information: core functionality, failure/disabled state, rescheduling behavior, required ordering, and clamping. It is front-loaded with the core action and flows naturally from general to specific, with no filler or repeated schema details.

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?

The description covers the central behavior, edge cases (disabled/enabled:false), rescheduling nuances, server-side constraint, and relationship to required sibling call, leaving little to infer. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return shape; the added context about the bookingId parameter and clamping is more than enough for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description additionally enriches the meaning of bookingId by explaining its role in rescheduling and non-counted slots, and warns about server-side range clamping—but it does not substantially expand on fromDate/toDate beyond the schema's 'ISO datetime' and 'exclusive' scope.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a resource ('bookable time slots'), and the computation source ('weekly booking rules minus what is already taken'). It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools by its scope (availability vs. bookings/leads/forms), and the mention of reschedule_booking shows where it fits.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit context for when to use the bookingId variant and the strong instruction to call this before reschedule_booking because out-of-range start times are rejected. It does not explicitly name alternatives to exclude or mention when to prefer list_bookings, but the usage context is clear and practically actionable.

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

All RooQuiz 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map to a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions actively disambiguate similar operations (e.g., get_form vs get_form_share_info vs get_form_stats). The main potential confusion is between list_records and list_leads and between get_record and get_lead, since both describe leads from slightly different angles.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun convention, with resources like form, question, lead, booking, examinee, translation, and tenant parallel across actions. The few non-CRUD verbs like prepare_/finalize_, duplicate_, and reschedule_ still fit the same uniform pattern.

Tool Count2/5

48 tools is well beyond the 3–15 ideal and even past the 25+ threshold, making the tool surface heavy for an agent to navigate. The broad platform scope explains some of the size, but the count still risks overwhelming context and increasing misselection.

Completeness4/5

The server covers form lifecycle, question editing, translations, CRM leads, examinees, records, bookings, team/tenant operations, image uploads, templates, and analytics extremely well. Minor gaps remain—such as no lead/record deletion, no member removal or role updates, and limited booking-settings management—but most workflows can be completed with the existing tools.

Resources

Need Help?