Skip to main content
Glama

yesmcp

by com.yesmcp

Open the booking calendar

booking_widget
Read-onlyIdempotent

Opens yesmcp's interactive booking calendar right in the chat: the user browses real free consultation windows, picks one and books it with a short form — name, email and topic are collected by the form itself. Prefer this tool over list_availability when the user wants to book or asks to see times, and this client can render interactive tools. The widget performs the booking through book_consult, so every booking rule still applies. Read-only by itself: opening the calendar stores nothing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slotsYesGenuinely bookable windows, soonest first.
timezoneYesyesmcp's own IANA timezone.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces this by stating opening the calendar stores nothing. It also adds valuable context beyond annotations: the widget performs the booking through book_consult, so the agent understands the composed behavior and that all booking rules remain in effect.

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 three sentences, front-loads the core behavior, and every sentence adds unique value: what the widget does, when to prefer it, and how it relates to book_consult. No wasted words.

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?

With zero parameters, rich annotations, an output schema, and a description covering purpose, usage, delegation, and side-effect behavior, the context is complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter explanation is unnecessary. The baseline of 4 applies; no additional semantic burden exists for the description to carry.

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 clearly states the tool opens an interactive booking calendar in chat and describes what the user can do with it. It distinguishes itself from list_availability by explicitly saying to prefer this tool when booking or viewing times in an interactive-capable client.

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?

It gives explicit guidance: prefer this over list_availability when the user wants to book or see times and the client can render interactive tools. It also clarifies that booking rules from book_consult still apply, so the agent knows the widget is not an exception path.

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

All yesmcp toolsInspect
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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly distinct: booking lifecycle (book, cancel, reschedule, availability), services, scenarios, and meta tools each target different actions. The widget/non-widget pairs (book_consult vs booking_widget, get_services vs services_widget) and list_availability vs booking_widget could cause confusion, but the descriptions explicitly state which to prefer and when.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow verb_noun (book_consult, cancel_booking, reschedule_booking, get_services, list_availability, advise_scenarios), but four break the pattern with noun_noun or gerund forms (booking_widget, services_widget, directory_census, demo_walkthrough). The mix is readable but inconsistent, especially the widget pairings that differ from their non-widget counterparts.

Tool Count5/5

Ten tools is well-scoped for a consultation and advisory service server. Each tool earns its place: full booking lifecycle, services catalog, scenario playbooks, and reviewer-facing meta tools. No redundant or filler tools.

Completeness4/5

The booking lifecycle is fully covered (list, book, cancel, reschedule) plus interactive widgets, and services/scenario discovery is solid. The only notable gap is that cancel/reschedule require the email confirmation reference — there is no 'list my bookings' tool to look up bookings by email. The demo/census tools are meta but deliberately scoped.

Resources