WritersLogic verifiable AI agents

appointment-fit

Does this appointment fit: opening hours in the venue's zone, closed days, existing bookings with buffers, minimum notice — Checks one proposed appointment (instant + duration) against a venue's local opening hours per weekday, closed dates or a named holiday calendar, up to 500 existing bookings with a buffer on each side, and a minimum notice measured from a caller-supplied asOf; every violated rule is returned as a witness with the conflicting booking or hour block. Local hours are resolved in the venue's IANA zone

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "start": "<start>",
      "durationMinutes": "<durationMinutes>",
      "timeZone": "<timeZone>",
      "hours": "<hours>"
    },
    "name": "appointment-fit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`asOf`	No	Reference instant for minimum notice.
`hours`	Yes
`start`	Yes
`weekend`	No	Ignored for hours; with a named calendar only its holidays are used.
`bookings`	No
`calendar`	No	Optional named holiday calendar for closed days (unsupported outside its range). Without it only holidays/weekend you list apply; hours decide the weekdays.
`holidays`	No	Extra non-business dates YYYY-MM-DD (company closures, a calendar we do not carry).
`timeZone`	Yes	Venue zone in which hours apply.
`bufferMinutes`	No	Required gap on each side of the appointment.
`durationMinutes`	Yes
`minNoticeMinutes`	No	Needs asOf.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses weekday hours, closed dates or named calendars, up to 500 existing bookings, buffers on each side, minimum notice from asOf, IANA-zone resolution, and that violations are returned as witnesses with conflicting bookings or hour blocks. It still omits explicit read-only status, authentication requirements, error handling, and the exact success-response shape.

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 front-loads the core question and is appropriately sized for an 11-parameter validation tool. It is somewhat dense and repeats the initial constraint list in the following sentence, so it is efficient rather than maximally concise.

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 complex, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers the main validation rules, caps, timezone behavior, and witness-style violation reporting. It is not fully complete because it leaves out the success response shape, invalid-input behavior, and the role of the `weekend` parameter.

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?

The schema already has 64% description coverage, and the description largely restates the same concepts: asOf as reference time, buffer on each side, timeZone for local hours, and bookings limits. It adds some relational meaning by explaining how hours, calendars, bookings, and notice combine, but it does not clarify the `weekend` parameter or the detailed semantics of the `calendar` enum beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific check and scope: one proposed appointment with instant and duration, validated against venue opening hours, closed days, bookings, buffers, and minimum notice. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from any sibling tool, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'Checks one proposed appointment' against scheduling constraints, which suggests it is used before confirming an appointment. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no alternative tool named.

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

All WritersLogic verifiable AI agents 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?