plumbing-booking

Request a Booking (sends SMS confirmation code)

request_booking

Destructive

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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Customer full name
`email`	No	Customer email as given. Required when customer_type is new; optional for returning customers. Never invent it.
`notes`	No	Issue description / anything the technician should know
`phone`	Yes	Customer mobile number — receives the 6-digit confirmation code
`address`	Yes	Full service address: street, optional unit, city, two-letter state (default MA) and five-digit ZIP. The ZIP decides service-area eligibility; the booking is placed at this address.
`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
`customer_type`	No	Required for booking: answer to Have you used us before?
`referral_code`	No	Referral code the customer supplied, exactly as given; omit when none was offered.
`heard_about_us`	No	Required for new customers: where they found us
`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	True only when the customer asked for a current promotion to be reviewed with this visit; the office reviews it, nothing is applied automatically.

Output 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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 21, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / address / description

Added value: +"Full service address: street, optional unit, city, two-letter state (default MA) and five-digit ZIP. The ZIP decides service-area eligibility; the booking is placed at this address."

addedInput schema / properties / email / description

Added value: +"Customer email as given. Required when customer_type is new; optional for returning customers. Never invent it."

addedInput schema / properties / promotion_review_requested / description

Added value: +"True only when the customer asked for a current promotion to be reviewed with this visit; the office reviews it, nothing is applied automatically."

addedInput schema / properties / referral_code / description

Added value: +"Referral code the customer supplied, exactly as given; omit when none was offered."

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 13, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / customer_type

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Required for booking: answer to Have you used us before?",
+  "enum": [
+    "new",
+    "returning"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / heard_about_us

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Required for new customers: where they found us",
+  "maxLength": 200,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 4, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / referral_code
```
Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 300,
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
First observedAug 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description goes further by disclosing the SMS-code side effect, asserting no visit is scheduled, and defining the correct post-call claim state until confirm_booking confirms. It does not mention rate limits or what happens on a repeated request, which keeps this from a 5.

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, front-loaded with the usage gate, each carrying distinct information: precondition, side effect/limitation, and the correctness guardrail. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the critical workflow semantics an agent needs: when it is legal to call, what it actually does (SMS, no scheduling), and how to interpret downstream state. It omits any mention of prerequisite tools like get_availability/check_service_area that feed preferred_windows and address eligibility, which is a minor gap given the schema and output schema already carry much of the load.

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%, so every one of the 13 parameters is already documented in the input schema, including the nested address object, enum values, and the confirmed const:true guard. The description adds workflow meaning (what must be confirmed before calling) but no additional per-parameter syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (request a booking), names the concrete side effect (sends a six-digit SMS code) and explicitly distinguishes it from scheduling ('does not schedule a visit'). It also clearly separates this tool from the sibling confirm_booking, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('only after the user explicitly asks to start a Johnson Bros. booking and confirms their own contact details, service address, issue, and preferred windows'), an exclusion ('does not schedule a visit'), and names the alternative/gate (confirm_booking returning status:confirmed and booked:true). Nothing is left to inference.

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

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?