knowledge-base

reschedule_order

Move an order you placed to a different date, or a booking to a different slot. The price, the items and the quantity are unchanged — this moves WHEN, nothing else. To change what was ordered, use request_order_change. A booking made for a time must be moved to a time, and a whole-day order to a whole day; the new slot is checked exactly as commit_order checked the first one. Call check_availability first. Returns settled, and when true from and to, plus remainingReschedules — an order may be moved a limited number of times before a person is asked instead. False comes with a reason: "slot-taken", "not-a-slot-start", "closed-that-day", "blackout-date", "capacity-full", "inside-lead-time", "date-in-past", "time-required", "time-not-supported", "inside-cancel-window", "too-many-reschedules" or "not-open". Some are yours to fix and carry freeSlots; the rest return an escalation for check_escalation. Authentication: bearer token required, and it must be the same agent that placed the order.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ref`	Yes	The `ref` returned by commit_order.
`date`	Yes	The new day, as yyyy-mm-dd in the business's own local calendar.
`note`	No	Optional. Why, in the buyer's own words. Shown to the business, never parsed.
`time`	No	The new slot start, HH:MM in 24-hour time and in their timezone. Required if the order was made for a time; leave it out if it was made for a whole day.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the limited reschedules, exact reason codes, escalation behavior, and authentication requirements (same agent, bearer token). This goes well beyond a simple 'move' statement.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but front-loaded with the core purpose and includes necessary details like error codes and auth. It is somewhat dense but each sentence contributes value; a slight trim of the exhaustive reason list would be possible.

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 (no output schema, multiple failure modes), the description fully covers behavior, prerequisites, return values, error handling, and escalation. It leaves little ambiguity for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description restates the time-required constraint but does not add meaningful new semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 action: move an order/booking to a different date/slot, and explicitly distinguishes from request_order_change for altering content. It clearly identifies the resource and the scope (WHEN, not WHAT).

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use for rescheduling only, use request_order_change for item changes, and call check_availability first. Also clarifies constraints for time-based vs whole-day orders, offering practical usage context.

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

All knowledge-base 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

A4.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but ask_business and ask_business_freeform both serve the core function of asking a question about a listing, which could cause misselection. The detailed descriptions mitigate the overlap, but the similar intent remains a minor ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (ask_, check_, contact_, get_, search_, send_), with only ask_business_freeform adding a modifier that still fits the convention. Naming is predictable and readable.

Tool Count5/5

Nine tools is well-scoped for a knowledge base server, covering discovery (search, get), questioning (ask), asynchronous communication (contact, followup, replies, escalation), and verification. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides full coverage of the domain: finding businesses, reading profiles, asking structured and freeform questions, escalating unresolved queries, opening and continuing conversations, and checking verification. Poll-based tools handle dead ends explicitly, so there are no obvious gaps.

Resources

Need Help?