Ménage Parfait

Move a booking to another date (customer confirms by email code)

reschedule_booking

Moves an existing home-cleaning booking, or one visit of a recurring plan, to another date. Two calls: 1) without verification_code - checks the request and emails a 6-digit code to the address on the booking; 2) ask the customer for the code and call again with the same arguments plus verification_code - the booking is moved. Free of charge, allowed only when both the current and the new date are at least 48 hours away (terms, article 7.4); otherwise use send_message or call 01 89 19 68 69. One-off booking: date and/or arrival window. Recurring plan: one visit at a time, date only (the arrival window stays the plan's); the first visit and frequency changes cannot be done here.

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_reference": "<booking_reference>",
      "email": "<email>",
      "new_date": "<new_date>"
    },
    "name": "reschedule_booking"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes	Email address used for the booking
`language`	No	Language of the emails	fr
`new_date`	Yes	New date, YYYY-MM-DD, at least 48 hours away (see get_time_slots)
`agent_name`	No	Name of the assistant/app
`visit_date`	No	Recurring plans only: current date of the visit to move
`booking_reference`	Yes	Booking reference given at booking (booking_reference)
`verification_code`	No	6-digit code from the email, second call only
`new_arrival_window`	No	One-off bookings only: start of the 2-hour arrival window from get_time_slots, e.g. "14:00". Omit to keep the current window.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint true), the description discloses the emailed 6-digit code side effect, that the operation is free of charge, the 48-hour eligibility rule with a terms citation, and the recurring-plan limitation that only the date moves while the arrival window stays. This is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot 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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the call flow, then eligibility, then per-booking-type rules — a logical order with no filler. It is dense and semicolon-heavy, which costs a little readability, but nearly every clause carries operational information.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers eligibility, the two-call protocol, and recurring vs one-off differences well. It does not say what a successful call returns (confirmation payload, new reference) or how to recover from a wrong/expired code, which leaves a small gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning: verification_code belongs only on the second call, visit_date applies only to recurring plans, and new_arrival_window applies only to one-off bookings. It does not restate formats already in the schema, which is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Moves an existing home-cleaning booking, or one visit of a recurring plan, to another date') and scopes it against siblings implicitly via create_booking and get_time_slots. An agent can distinguish this from booking creation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit two-step call sequence (first without verification_code, then with it), the precondition that both dates must be 48+ hours away, and a concrete fallback ('otherwise use send_message or call 01 89 19 68 69'). It also names exclusions: the first visit and frequency changes cannot be done here.

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

All Ménage Parfait 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?