Skip to main content
Glama

Agent Broker

by dev.hatchloop

check_booking_link

Read-onlyIdempotent

Free, instant pre-flight check for a booking URL. Classifies which booking platform a URL belongs to and tells you whether import_booking_url will accept it, WITHOUT fetching the page or spending money. Returns the platform, the exact smb_id import_booking_url would assign, the channels the booking will route through, and the inferred country. Use it to de-risk a paid booking BEFORE calling import_booking_url + schedule_appointment.

EXAMPLE USER QUERIES THAT MATCH THIS TOOL: user: "Is this a bookable link? https://cal.com/jane" -> call check_booking_link({"url": "https://cal.com/jane"}) -> then import_booking_url({"booking_url": "https://cal.com/jane"}) user: "Can you book me here: https://www.opentable.com/r/acme-bistro" -> call check_booking_link({"url": "https://www.opentable.com/r/acme-bistro"})

WHEN TO USE: Call this the moment a user pastes a URL and you are not sure it is a bookable page, or before you commit to a paid schedule_appointment. It is free and sub-100ms, so run it as a guard: if supported=true, proceed to import_booking_url with confidence; if supported=false, fall back to find_business or call_business instead of wasting a booking attempt. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use to confirm the page is currently live/available — this tool does not fetch the URL, it only classifies its shape. It is not a substitute for import_booking_url (which actually registers the business) or verify_business (which confirms an already-imported smb_id). COST: free - no key required LATENCY: ~20ms

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesFull http(s) URL to classify, e.g. 'https://cal.com/jane' or 'https://www.opentable.com/r/acme'.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses that the tool does NOT fetch the URL, is free, and runs in ~20ms, and it explains what it only inspects rather than guarantees. These are important behavioral traits that annotations alone do not convey.

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 is well-structured with headers and front-loaded summary, but it contains minor redundancy such as 'free'/'instant' repeated in both the opening and COST/LATENCY sections. Still, every major section adds actionable guidance.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description lists the returned fields (platform, smb_id, channels, country), the supported/un-supported decision, cost, latency, and workflow integration. An agent has enough context to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 single url parameter is already fully documented in the input schema with format examples, so the description adds little beyond reinforcing the same sample URLs. This is the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource ('pre-flight check for a booking URL') and states exactly what it classifies and returns, differentiating it from import_booking_url and verify_business. It also names sibling tools as fallbacks in WHEN NOT TO USE.

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 includes explicit WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT TO USE sections with concrete conditions, alternatives (find_business, call_business), and exclusions. Example user queries demonstrate the exact call sequence, so an agent knows precisely when to invoke this tool.

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

All Agent Broker 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct resource+action pairs (find_business vs verify_business, check_booking_link vs import_booking_url, get_status vs get_outcome). The main confusable pairs are send_message vs send_transactional_confirmation and verify_business vs verify_company_record, but their descriptions draw clear boundary lines.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set overwhelmingly follows lower_snake_case verb_noun naming (call_business, check_quota, find_business, send_message, verify_company_record). Minor deviations like self_test and mint_key, plus inconsistent verb choices (lookup_ vs get_ vs find_), prevent a perfect score.

Tool Count3/5

At 23 tools, the server falls into the heavy range and bundles several unrelated domains: SMB booking/messaging, trade and sanctions compliance, company verification, and platform operations. Each tool is individually reasonable, but the set feels like multiple servers merged into one.

Completeness3/5

Core SMB workflows are well covered: find/verify/import/book, messaging with conversation handling, and compliance preflights. Notable gaps include no consent-record management even though send_message requires consent_record_id for marketing, no update/delete lifecycle for leads or businesses, and no webhook configuration despite webhooks being referenced.

Resources