Skip to main content
Glama

Agent Broker

by io.github.basilalshukaili
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

schedule_appointment

Destructive

Check availability, book, or cancel via Cal.com. Only completes when the SMB's imported booking link is bound to this deployment's ONE connected Cal.com account; otherwise fails honestly (booking_destination_unmapped) with no charge. No working booking path exists yet for non-Cal.com platforms (voice AI, web form) — those SMBs fail honestly instead of a fabricated confirmation. [from $0.15/call, variable] [async→get_outcome]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesNo
actionYes
smb_idYes
serviceNo
customerNo
requested_timeNo
idempotency_keyNoRetry key: a 24h replay returns the original receipt, not re-run or charged.
existing_appointment_idNoRequired for cancel

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / action / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "book",
-  "reschedule",
-  "cancel",
-  "check_availability"
-]New value: +[
+  "book",
+  "cancel",
+  "check_availability"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / existing_appointment_id / description
      Previous value: -"Required for reschedule/cancel"New value: +"Required for cancel"
    • changedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key / description
      Previous value: -"Optional client-supplied key for safe retries. Replaying the same key within 24h returns the original receipt - the operation is NOT re-executed and NOT re-charged."New value: +"Retry key: a 24h replay returns the original receipt, not re-run or charged."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional client-supplied key for safe retries. Replaying the same key within 24h returns the original receipt - the operation is NOT re-executed and NOT re-charged.",
+  "maxLength": 128,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses the honest failure mode (booking_destination_unmapped with no charge), the no-fabricated-confirmation guarantee, per-call pricing, and the async handoff to get_outcome. This is rich behavioral context that the annotations alone do not provide.

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?

The description is compact: purpose first, then binding/failure conditions, non-Cal.com caveat, then cost and async metadata in brackets. Each sentence adds unique information, and the front-loading makes it easy to scan. Minor repetition of 'fails honestly' is acceptable.

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?

It covers the key contextual constraints: binding prerequisite, failure code, no-charge behavior, non-Cal.com limitation, pricing, and async retrieval via get_outcome. With no output schema, the async pointer is essential. It could be more explicit about parameter requirements, but the schema's 'Required for cancel' note partially covers that.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 25%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It names the three action values (already in the enum) and ties success to the smb_id's booking link, but it does not clarify customer, requested_time, service, or notes beyond their schema structure. This leaves a significant gap.

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-resource pairing—'Check availability, book, or cancel via Cal.com'—that precisely captures the tool's lifecycle. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like check_booking_link by covering the full scheduling workflow and adding a binding condition that scopes when it applies.

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?

The description clearly states the prerequisite (booking link bound to the connected Cal.com account) and the non-Cal.com limitation, giving agents a solid sense of when the tool will succeed or fail. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use X instead,' so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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
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