SYMONE motorcycle transport

Prepare a booking (the customer pays on symone.fr)

create_checkout

Prepare the booking of a scheduled trip from search_routes (UCP checkout). SYMONE computes the price; payment never goes through the assistant: the response has status requires_escalation and a continue_url. Give that link to the customer, who checks the booking on symone.fr and pays on the secure PayPlug page (3-D Secure). Seats are not held until payment. Call get_checkout later: status completed means paid and confirmed by e-mail.

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": {
      "checkout": "<checkout>"
    },
    "name": "create_checkout"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`meta`	No	Optional UCP request metadata: {"ucp-agent": {"profile": "https://…/.well-known/ucp"}, "idempotency-key": "<uuid>"}. Send an idempotency key to retry safely.
`checkout`	Yes	UCP checkout (dev.ucp.shopping.checkout). One line: the scheduled trip and the number of motorcycles.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), while the description supplies the behavior that actually matters: the call never takes payment, it returns status=requires_escalation plus a continue_url, seats are not held until payment, and confirmation arrives by e-mail after PayPlug 3-D Secure. Nothing here contradicts the annotations, and the payment/seat-hold caveats are exactly the context an agent needs before calling a create-ish tool.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the scope and then the escalation/payment mechanics; every sentence carries operational information. Slightly longer than strictly necessary, but there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

For a nested two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite source, the nature of the response (status plus continue_url), the payment hand-off, the seat-hold caveat, and the verification step via get_checkout. An agent has everything needed to call it and to explain the outcome to a customer.

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%, with line_items, trip, buyer and meta all documented inline, so the description does not need to re-explain them. It adds only the provenance hint that the trip item id comes from search_routes and the note that SYMONE computes the price, which is marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("Prepare the booking of a scheduled trip") and immediately qualifies the scope with "from search_routes (UCP checkout)". This lets an agent distinguish it from complete_checkout and update_checkout without opening any schema, since it is explicitly the preparation step only.

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?

It gives clear triggering context (a scheduled trip previously returned by search_routes) and describes the full follow-up flow: hand the continue_url to the customer, then call get_checkout to learn whether status is completed. It does not explicitly say when to prefer update_checkout or complete_checkout over re-creating a checkout, so the sibling routing is implied rather than stated.

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

All SYMONE motorcycle transport 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?