plumbing-booking

Request a Booking (sends SMS confirmation code)

request_booking

Use this only after the user explicitly asks to start a Johnson Bros. booking and confirms their own contact details, service address, issue, and preferred windows. It sends a six-digit SMS code and does not schedule a visit. Do not claim an appointment exists until confirm_booking returns status:confirmed and booked:true.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Customer full name
`email`	No
`notes`	No	Issue description / anything the technician should know
`phone`	Yes	Customer mobile number — receives the 6-digit confirmation code
`address`	Yes
`service`	Yes	Requested service, e.g. "water heater replacement"
`confirmed`	Yes	True only after the user explicitly asks to start this booking request and send the SMS code
`time_preference`	No	Fallback time-of-day preference if none of the preferred windows is open	any
`preferred_windows`	No	Preferred arrival windows from get_availability (start_time/end_time ISO strings)
`promotion_review_requested`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`status`	Yes
`success`	Yes
`next_step`	Yes
`booking_id`	No
`error_code`	No
`expires_at`	No
`code_sent_to`	No
`review_sandbox`	No
`in_service_area`	No
`attempts_allowed`	No
`service_area_notice`	No
`sandbox_verification_code`	No

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses a significant side effect (SMS sending) beyond what annotations capture, which is operationally important (cost/spam). Reasonably covers the non-idempotent behavior hinted by idempotentHint: false, though it could further warn against double-submission.

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?

Three sentences: when to call, what happens, when to claim success. Every word earns its place and the importance of the SMS side effect is front and center.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool with 10 parameters, nested objects, and a two-phase confirmation flow, the description clearly defines the overall flow and the exact condition indicating successful booking. It doesn't cover cancellation/error paths, but those are likely in the output schema.

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 coverage is 70%, so some burden rests on the description, which provides an overall collection checklist. However, it doesn't flag that address and time_preference are nested/optional, so the description's added value over the schema is limited.

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?

Highlights the tool's exact purpose: it sends a six-digit SMS code and explicitly states what it does not do, i.e., schedule a visit. Clearly differentiates from sibling confirm_booking by naming it, and the resource (booking initiation flow) is unambiguous.

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?

States a concrete precondition (only after user explicitly initiates) and explains when not to use it (do not treat as scheduled). Even names the sibling tool and the exact response conditions required to proceed.

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

All plumbing-booking 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

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear, distinct purposes: business_info vs search vs get_services_pricing are separable. However, get_services_pricing and get_quote overlap somewhat—both provide pricing info, though one is for general browsing and the other for specific estimates. The descriptions do help distinguish them, so the ambiguity is low.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names generally follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., business_info, check_service_area, confirm_booking, get_availability, get_quote). Some names are single verbs or nouns (e.g., fetch, search) which deviate slightly, but overall the pattern is consistent and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

11 tools is within the ideal range for a booking-focused MCP server. Each tool covers a distinct part of the customer journey: info lookup, service area check, pricing, availability, booking, confirmation, callbacks, emergencies, and document retrieval. No tool seems redundant or unnecessary.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core booking lifecycle: check service area, get availability, request booking, confirm booking, request callback, and get quotes. Emergency help is also provided. Minor gaps include lack of a cancel/update booking tool, but the server context suggests that might not be needed for the public-facing purpose.

Resources

Need Help?