Skip to main content
Glama

Agent Broker

by io.github.basilalshukaili

check_booking_link

Read-onlyIdempotent

Free, instant pre-flight check for a booking URL. Classifies which booking platform a URL belongs to and tells you whether import_booking_url will accept it, WITHOUT fetching the page or spending money. Returns the platform, the exact smb_id import_booking_url would assign, the channels the booking will route through, and the inferred country. Use it to de-risk a paid booking BEFORE calling import_booking_url + schedule_appointment.

EXAMPLE USER QUERIES THAT MATCH THIS TOOL: user: "Is this a bookable link? https://cal.com/jane" -> call check_booking_link({"url": "https://cal.com/jane"}) -> then import_booking_url({"booking_url": "https://cal.com/jane"}) user: "Can you book me here: https://www.opentable.com/r/acme-bistro" -> call check_booking_link({"url": "https://www.opentable.com/r/acme-bistro"})

WHEN TO USE: Call this the moment a user pastes a URL and you are not sure it is a bookable page, or before you commit to a paid schedule_appointment. It is free and sub-100ms, so run it as a guard: if supported=true, proceed to import_booking_url with confidence; if supported=false, fall back to find_business or call_business instead of wasting a booking attempt. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use to confirm the page is currently live/available — this tool does not fetch the URL, it only classifies its shape. It is not a substitute for import_booking_url (which actually registers the business) or verify_business (which confirms an already-imported smb_id). COST: free - no key required LATENCY: ~20ms

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesFull http(s) URL to classify, e.g. 'https://cal.com/jane' or 'https://www.opentable.com/r/acme'.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the tool does NOT fetch the URL or spend money, classifies URL shape only, and returns platform, smb_id, channels, and inferred country. It also includes free cost and sub-100ms latency, which the annotations do not convey. No contradiction with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint.

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?

Although lengthy, every section earns its place: core behavior is front-loaded, followed by concrete examples, usage guardrails, and cost/latency. The structured formatting makes it easy for an agent to scan and extract decision-relevant information quickly.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool returns, what it does not do, when to use it, when not to use it, how to interpret the result, and the cost/latency profile. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and decide next steps.

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?

The input schema already provides a clear description for the single url parameter, including an example format, so baseline is 3. The description adds value with concrete user-query-to-parameter mappings, reinforcing exactly what URLs look like and how the agent should pass them.

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: 'pre-flight check for a booking URL' that classifies platform and predicts whether import_booking_url will accept it. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from import_booking_url and verify_business, making its unique role unmistakable.

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?

The description provides a dedicated 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' section. It tells the agent to call this tool as a free guard before paid actions, and explicitly states it should not replace import_booking_url, verify_business, or be used to confirm a page is live.

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

All Agent Broker 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

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose with detailed descriptions and explicit WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT TO USE guidance. Potential overlaps like send_message vs. send_transactional_confirmation are well-differentiated by idempotency and use case, and compliance tools (check_compliance, screen_sanctions, map_trade_restriction) operate on different scopes without ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use lowercase snake_case and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (call_business, check_quota, find_business, send_message, verify_company_record). Even less standard verbs like lookup, map, and mint follow the same structural convention, and there are no mixed casing styles or inconsistent naming patterns.

Tool Count4/5

With 23 tools, this is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the breadth of the server's purpose—covering communication, scheduling, compliance, trade screening, and operational utilities—justifies the count. Each tool addresses a distinct capability area, and the set is not bloated with redundant or trivial functions.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of the broker's domain: business discovery, booking (check, import, schedule), communication (send, receive, read), compliance (pre-flight checks, sanctions, trade restrictions, company verification), and operational support (quota, health, cost preview, key minting, async status/outcome). There are no obvious dead ends or missing critical operations for the stated purpose.

Resources