Skip to main content
Glama

Partelisto

by io.github.TargetGrps

send_guest_checkin_link

Sends (or resends) the guest check-in link by email for a booking the host owns. This is a real action with a side effect: it emails the guest and, on resend, invalidates the guest's previous link. Requires the write permission granted separately during sign-in. Ask the host to confirm before calling this.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailNoGuest email to send to. Omit to use the email already on the booking.
bookingIdYesThe booking id.
guestNameNoGuest name, for the email greeting. Omit to keep the name already on the booking.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses concrete side effects: 'it emails the guest and, on resend, invalidates the guest's previous link.' It also adds the write-permission and host-confirmation requirements, giving the agent a strong behavioral model.

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 concise sentences front-load the core action and side effect, then add permission and confirmation guidance. Each sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential pre-invocation context: side effect, link invalidation, required permission, and the need for host confirmation. The schema handles parameter details, and siblings are plainly different read-only tools.

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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for bookingId, email, and guestName. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

States the specific action: 'Sends (or resends) the guest check-in link by email for a booking the host owns.' This clearly identifies a verb and resource and is easy to distinguish from the sibling get/list tools.

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?

Provides clear usage context: the tool requires write permission and the agent should 'Ask the host to confirm before calling this.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Partelisto 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct concern: guest form completion, usage/limits, bookings, properties, SES statuses, and sending links. Even the two booking-related tools are separated by intent (form status vs. booking metadata/link existence).

Naming Consistency5/5

All names follow a predictable verb_noun pattern: get_* for status/summary queries, list_* for collections, and send_* for the single action. Minor acronym styling (ses_statuses, checkin_link) does not break the pattern.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for a guest check-in and property-management helper. Each tool covers a distinct operation without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the main host workflows: viewing properties/bookings, checking guest form completion, sending/resending check-in links, and monitoring SES compliance status. Minor gaps exist (e.g. no way to trigger SES submission or view form content), but these appear deliberately out of scope.

Resources