Dollea Beauty Coworking

Coworking-Änderung anfragen

coworking_request_change

DestructiveIdempotent

Eine alternative Mietbuchung für das eigene Konto anfragen. Belegung und laufende Anfragen werden geprüft. Die Änderung bleibt bis zur bestehenden Genehmigung offen.

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": {
      "booking_id": "<booking_id>",
      "submission_key": "<submission_key>",
      "new_date": "<new_date>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "coworking_request_change"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reason`	Yes	Vom Nutzer bereitgestellter Hinweis zur gewünschten Änderung oder Stornierung.
`language`	No	Gewünschte Sprache für Texte und Anzeigeformate: de, en oder ru.	de
`new_date`	Yes	Gewünschter alternativer Miettag im Format JJJJ-MM-TT.
`booking_id`	Yes	Kennung einer eigenen Mietbuchung aus coworking_list_bookings.
`submission_key`	Yes	Neue UUID für eine neue Anfrage; bei Wiederholungen exakt dieselbe UUID verwenden.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`business`	Yes
`language`	Yes
`timezone`	Yes
`local_date`	Yes
`contract_version`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuine context — that occupancy and pending requests are validated and that the change stays open until the existing approval — which explains the pending workflow, though it does not explain the destructive aspect or what approving/rejecting does.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the request action and its side effects come first. It is efficient for the amount of content, though slightly terse given the tool's complexity.

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?

With rich annotations and an output schema present, the description need not explain returns. It covers the request semantics and the pending-until-approval state, which is the key behavioral fact an agent needs; only the relationship to sibling request/confirm tools is missing.

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 schema already documents booking_id, new_date, reason, submission_key and language with formats and constraints. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (anfragen) and resource (alternative Mietbuchung für das eigene Konto), so an agent knows it requests a booking change. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling coworking_request_cancellation, which also edits a booking, so the boundary is left to inference.

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?

It implies context by noting that availability and running requests are checked, and that the change stays pending until existing approval — effectively describing the request path. But it never states when to prefer this over coworking_request_cancellation or coworking_confirm_booking, so the routing guidance remains implicit.

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

All Dollea Beauty Coworking 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?