RooQuiz

reschedule_booking

Move a confirmed booking of the current team to a different time, as the organiser. The new start time must be one of the available slots — call get_booking_availability with this bookingId first and pick a startAt from its slots. The attendee is emailed about the new time, the 24h reminder is re-armed, and the booking.rescheduled integration event fires. Only works on a scheduled booking; it is rejected if the slot got taken in the meantime or if that respondent already has another active booking.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`startAt`	Yes	The new start time, ISO datetime — must be one of the slots from get_booking_availability
`bookingId`	Yes	The booking id (the bookingId returned by list_bookings)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`endAt`	No	New end, ISO datetime
`status`	No	Booking status after the move
`startAt`	No	New start, ISO datetime
`timezone`	No	Timezone of the new slot
`bookingId`	No	The booking that was moved
`slotDurationMinutes`	No	Length of the slot

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses concrete behavioral consequences: the attendee is emailed, the 24-hour reminder is re-armed, and a booking.rescheduled integration event fires. It also explains rejection conditions, which is valuable context for a mutating operation that is not marked destructive.

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?

Four dense sentences cover purpose, required prerequisite call, parameter constraints, side effects, and failure conditions without wasted words. The most important scoping information comes first and the practical how-to guidance is front-loaded.

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 is complete for a two-parameter mutation with an output schema: it states preconditions, valid input origin, side effects, event behavior, and rejection cases. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly or anticipate failures 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 both parameters. The description adds useful context by connecting bookingId to get_booking_availability and specifying that startAt must be selected from that call's slots, but most of the parameter meaning is already present in the schema.

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-plus-resource statement: 'Move a confirmed booking of the current team to a different time, as the organiser.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_booking_availability, review_booking, and update_booking_status by focusing on the rescheduling action and the organizer/team scope.

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 gives explicit guidance: call get_booking_availability with this bookingId first, pick a startAt from its slots, and provide that as the new time. It also states when it will not work: rejected if the slot was taken or if the respondent already has another active booking, and only applies to confirmed/scheduled bookings.

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?