Dollea Cosmetics Salon

Salonterminänderung anfragen

salon_request_change

DestructiveIdempotent

Eine Änderung des eigenen Salontermins anfragen. Verfügbarkeit wird erneut geprüft. Die Anfrage ändert den Termin erst nach Genehmigung. Dieselbe Übermittlungskennung erzeugt keine zweite Anfrage.

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_token": "<booking_token>",
      "submission_key": "<submission_key>",
      "new_start_at": "<new_start_at>"
    },
    "name": "salon_request_change"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reason`	No	Vom Nutzer bereitgestellter Hinweis zur gewünschten Änderung oder Stornierung.
`language`	No	Gewünschte Sprache für Texte und Anzeigeformate: de, en oder ru.	de
`new_start_at`	Yes	Gewünschter neuer Beginn des Salontermins als ISO-Datum mit Zeitzonenoffset.
`booking_token`	Yes	Privater Schlüssel des eigenen Salontermins aus der Buchungsbestätigung. Er berechtigt nicht zum Zugriff auf andere Termine.
`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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds genuinely new context: availability is re-checked and the appointment changes only after approval, which reveals an asynchronous approval workflow not captured by any annotation. It also restates idempotency for the submission key, which is somewhat redundant with idempotentHint=true, but the approval semantics make the description valuable.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the two behavioral facts that matter (re-check, approval gate, idempotency). Zero filler and no repetition.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies the crucial approval-gated mutation semantics, though it omits what happens on rejection or how long the pending state lasts.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description touches submission-key behavior ('Dieselbe Übermittlungskennung erzeugt keine zweite Anfrage') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema and idempotentHint already convey.

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?

Stated as a specific verb+resource: 'Eine Änderung des eigenen Salontermins anfragen' names both the action (request a change) and the scoped target (one's own appointment). It is clear enough to separate from read tools like salon_get_booking, but it never names sibling salon_request_cancellation, so the differentiation from the nearest alternative is left implicit.

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 rather than stated: 'Änderung' vs. cancellation is the only signal separating this from salon_request_cancellation, and no when-not or alternative routing is given. An agent can infer the domain but must guess at the sibling boundary.

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

All Dollea Cosmetics Salon 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?