Skip to main content
Glama

LayUp Sports Booking

create_alert

Set up an email alert for the user: LayUp watches for NEW matching slots (e.g. a cancellation freeing up a peak court) and emails them when one appears. Use when the user can't find a slot now and wants to be notified, or asks to 'monitor'/'watch'/'let me know when'. Requires their email. A confirmation email is sent first — the user must click confirm before any alerts fire (so always tell them to check their inbox). LayUp does the watching; the notification arrives by email, not in this chat.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
areaNoLondon borough / area / neighbourhood to match (e.g. 'Hackney', 'Maida Vale'). NOT a venue name — to watch a specific venue use venue_names. Omit for all London.
emailYesThe user's REAL email address, as given by them (required — alerts are emailed here). Never invent, guess or substitute a placeholder like user@example.com; if you don't have it, ask the user first.
sportNoOne of Football, Tennis, Squash, Padel, Swimming. Omit for any.
time_toNoLatest London time-of-day, 'HH:MM'.
max_priceNoOnly alert on slots at or under this GBP price.
time_fromNoEarliest London time-of-day, 'HH:MM' (e.g. '18:00').
venue_namesNoPin the alert to specific venues BY NAME, exactly as shown in search results (e.g. ["Hay's Galleria", "Padel Box"]). Use this whenever the user names venues — the server resolves names to the right venue(s). Prefer this over venue_slugs.
venue_slugsNoPin the alert to specific venues by their exact venue_slug (only if you already have slug values from search_slots). For most cases use venue_names instead. Omit for any venue.
days_of_weekNoOnly alert on these days (e.g. ['Sat','Sun'] for weekends). The alert is standing — it keeps watching these days every week until the user unsubscribes. Omit for any day.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses the critical async confirmation step: 'A confirmation email is sent first — the user must click confirm before any alerts fire (so always tell them to check their inbox).' It also notes notifications arrive by email, not chat. This goes well beyond the basic readOnlyHint=false annotation and is essential for correct invocation.

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?

Three sentences that each earn their place: what it does, when to use, and the must-know confirmation caveat. It is front-loaded, free of fluff, and logically structured.

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?

With 9 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the critical non-obvious behaviors: confirmation email, email channel, and standing watch. It does not explain return values, but none are expected. Slightly lacking is explicit mention of how to cancel a standing alert, but the schema's days_of_week description hints at it.

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 input schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters and include rich details (e.g., area vs venue_names, email validity). The tool description adds little param-specific meaning, only reinforcing 'Requires their email'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema carries the load.

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: 'Set up an email alert for the user', and clearly distinguishes this from sibling search tools by explaining the async watch behavior ('watches for NEW matching slots... and emails them when one appears'). This makes its purpose unmistakable and distinct.

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 explicit when-to-use criteria: 'Use when the user can't find a slot now and wants to be notified, or asks to monitor/watch/let me know when.' This strongly implies the contrast with immediate search tools. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the context is clear.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search_slots for finding slots, get_venue for drilling into a specific venue, list_sports for an overview, and create_alert for notifications. There is no overlap or ambiguity among them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_alert, get_venue, list_sports, search_slots. The naming is uniform, predictable, and easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

With 4 tools, the set is well-scoped for a sports booking aggregator. Each tool covers a distinct core function (search, venue details, sport overview, alerts) without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.

Completeness4/5

The core workflow of searching slots, viewing venue details, and setting alerts is covered. Minor gaps exist, such as no built-in booking (relying on external links) and no way to manage or cancel alerts, but these are acceptable given the design.

Resources