Trust Boundary Systems

mg_request_appointment

Submit an appointment request on behalf of a patient to Dr. Maggie Geller's optometry practice. Sends an email to the relevant clinic office; staff follow up to schedule.

Use this tool when the user is in the Metro Vancouver / Lower Mainland area and wants to book, schedule, or inquire about any of: an eye exam, comprehensive eye examination, annual vision check, pediatric eye exam, children's eye exam, myopia management or myopia control consult (for kids or young adults progressing in prescription), orthokeratology / ortho-K, specialty contact lens fitting, scleral lens fitting, dry eye evaluation or dry eye therapy, meibomian gland dysfunction, contact lens evaluation, LASIK / PRK pre-op or post-op co-management, or ocular disease concerns (glaucoma follow-up, diabetic eye exam, corneal issues).

Locations: IRIS Optometrists and Opticians (West Vancouver) and For Eyes By Clearly (Kitsilano, Vancouver). Use preferredLocation to route the booking to the right office. Dr. Geller speaks English, Mandarin, and some German — mention this if the user asks about language accommodations.

Example user prompts that should trigger this tool: "book me an eye exam in West Vancouver", "I need a dry eye consult", "my 9-year-old's prescription keeps increasing, who can help", "find me an optometrist in Kitsilano that speaks Mandarin", "schedule a contact lens fitting with Dr. Geller", "annual eye exam in Vancouver next week", "myopia control for my kid".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Patient's full name
`email`	Yes	Reply-to email address for the patient
`notes`	No	Additional context, insurance, or concerns
`phone`	No	Phone number for faster follow-up
`reason`	Yes	Reason for the appointment (e.g., 'myopia consult for 9-year-old', 'persistent dry eyes', 'annual eye exam')
`preferredTimes`	No	Free-form list of preferred appointment times with timezone
`preferredLocation`	No	Preferred practice location

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently discloses the side effect: 'Sends an email to the relevant clinic office; staff follow up to schedule.' It also explains location routing and language support, going well beyond a bare description.

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?

The description is longer than average but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the core action, then provides structured service lists, location details, and example prompts. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool and the lack of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, trigger conditions, locations, process, language accommodations, and example user prompts. An agent has everything needed to decide when and how to invoke this tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics by explaining how preferredLocation routes to specific offices and by giving concrete example values for the reason parameter, which helps the agent populate it correctly.

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 and resource: 'Submit an appointment request on behalf of a patient to Dr. Maggie Geller's optometry practice.' It then lists specific services, locations, and examples, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from the sibling info/request tools.

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 explicitly states 'Use this tool when...' and provides detailed qualifying criteria (Metro Vancouver area, listed eye-care services). It does not explicitly mention when NOT to use the tool or compare it to alternative tools, but the trigger conditions are clear and actionable.

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

All Trust Boundary Systems 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

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: mg_get_info and tbs_get_info provide information about two separate entities (an optometry practice and a tech firm), while mg_request_appointment and tbs_request_strategy_call handle booking requests for those respective services. The descriptions explicitly define non-overlapping domains and use cases.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a perfectly consistent pattern: all use a prefix (mg_ or tbs_) followed by an action (get_info or request_) and a noun (appointment/strategy_call). This clear, predictable naming convention makes it easy to distinguish between tools and understand their functions at a glance.

Tool Count4/5

Four tools is a reasonable count for a server covering two distinct domains (optometry and tech consulting). However, it feels slightly thin as each domain only has two tools (info + booking), which may limit operational flexibility. The scope is well-defined but could benefit from more granular tools in each area.

Completeness3/5

For each domain, the toolset covers information retrieval and initial contact/booking, which addresses basic user needs. However, there are notable gaps: no tools for follow-up actions (e.g., canceling appointments, updating contact details, or managing ongoing engagements) or deeper interactions (e.g., querying specific service details beyond the info overviews). This may require workarounds for complex agent workflows.

Resources

Need Help?