Ysaere

Front Door: Request Service

frontdoor_request_booking

Send a service request to a local Front Door business on the person's behalf. Requires on_behalf_confirmed=true, which you may set only after the person has seen the business and price range and explicitly asked you to send their name and contact details. This does not guarantee a booking: the business owner approves or declines, confirms the time and final price, and nothing is charged. Prices are owner-approved ranges. Free.

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>",
      "service_key": "<service_key>",
      "customer_name": "<customer_name>",
      "service_zip": "<service_zip>"
    },
    "name": "frontdoor_request_booking"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	Yes	Business page id from frontdoor_find_local_service (the "slug" field).
`notes`	No	Short notes for the owner, e.g. pool size or a green pool. Never include payment details.
`service_key`	Yes	services[].key of the service being requested (from frontdoor_get_business or a match).
`service_zip`	Yes	5-digit ZIP of the property to be serviced; must be in the business service area.
`customer_name`	Yes	Name of the person the service is for.
`preferred_day`	No	Preferred weekday to start, if the person has one.
`customer_email`	No	Email the owner can reach the person on (phone or email is required).
`customer_phone`	No	Phone the owner can reach the person on (phone or email is required).
`on_behalf_confirmed`	No	MUST be true. Set it only after the person you act for has seen the business, price range and the contact details being shared, and explicitly told you to send this request.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the request does not guarantee a booking, the owner approves or declines, the owner confirms time and final price, nothing is charged, and prices are owner-approved ranges. These are exactly the post-call expectations an agent needs, and they are not derivable from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the consent gate, then the outcome caveat and pricing. Every sentence carries distinct information, though the consent condition is stated twice across description and schema, which is slight redundancy rather than waste.

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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: consent gating, asynchronous owner approval, and no charge. What is missing is any hint about the response (e.g., a confirmation or request id) or follow-up, which the absent output schema leaves undocumented.

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 eight parameters are already fully documented, and the description's consent explanation largely restates the on_behalf_confirmed field text. Baseline 3 applies: the description adds the 'seen the business and price range' framing but no parameter-level detail the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Send a service request to a local Front Door business on the person's behalf.' That is unambiguous and distinct from the lookup siblings named in the schema. It does not name an alternative tool for finding or inspecting businesses, so sibling differentiation is only implicit through the schema's references.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition for use: on_behalf_confirmed=true, set only after the person has seen the business and price range and explicitly asked. It does not say when NOT to use it or which sibling to call first when the business or service is unknown, leaving that to the schema field descriptions.

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

All Ysaere 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?