asap golf

prepare_alert

Read-only

Prepare a link to review and save a tee-time alert on asap.golf. This does not create or activate an alert. The golfer must open the link, sign in, review and save it, and connect a notification method to receive alerts. Use course IDs returned by search.

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": {
      "region": "<region>",
      "courseIds": "<courseIds>",
      "startDate": "<startDate>",
      "from": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>",
      "players": "<players>"
    },
    "name": "prepare_alert"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Latest local tee time, minutes after midnight.
`days`	No	Number of dates for a one-time alert; default 1.
`from`	Yes	Earliest local tee time, minutes after midnight.
`name`	No
`holes`	No	0 means any round length.
`region`	Yes	Supported region ID returned by search.
`players`	Yes
`maxPrice`	No
`weekdays`	No	Days to repeat: Sunday is 0. Required for weekly alerts.
`courseIds`	Yes	Connected course IDs in the selected region.
`startDate`	Yes	First date in YYYY-MM-DD, in the region’s local time.
`recurrence`	No
`expiresDays`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the non-obvious behavior that nothing is actually created or activated and that a human plus a connected notification method are required afterward. It does not disclose link lifetime, single-use behavior, or any rate limits, which are the remaining behavioral gaps for a handoff-link tool.

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, front-loaded with the action, then the critical negative constraint, then the human handoff, then the parameter hint. Every sentence earns its place and no wording is redundant.

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 a 13-parameter scheduling tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned conceptually (a review/save link) and the human follow-up needed. It leaves the recurring-vs-one-time parameter interplay and link validity undocumented, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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?

With 62% schema coverage across 13 parameters, the schema carries most of the load; the description only adds that courseIds (and by extension region) must come from prior search results. Nothing is said about how days, recurrence, weekdays, and expiresDays interact, which is where an agent is most likely to mis-set the alert.

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 ('Prepare a link to review and save a tee-time alert') and immediately bounds the scope with 'This does not create or activate an alert', which is exactly the distinction an agent needs against create_tee_time_poll. An agent can tell what it produces (a handoff link) 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear context for when this is the right call — when a human will complete sign-in, review, and save — and points to search as the source of course IDs. It stops short of naming the alternative tools to use if the agent wanted a poll created directly, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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

All asap golf 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?