chucho — Book Direct

Prepare enquiry for guest review

prepare_enquiry

Idempotent

Validate answers against the current host form and prepare an expiring proposal. This does not submit an enquiry or notify the host. Present the complete returned review, property and chosen contact details to the guest, then ask for explicit approval. Keep the approval token private; it is bound to this exact proposal. Use a fresh UUID idempotencyKey for each new proposal and reuse it for network retries. After displaying cards, default to 1–3 short sentences, usually under 60 words unless the traveler requests a detailed comparison: explain a helpful fit or next choice, and include only a material price/availability caveat or a necessary question. Do not repeat result counts, card facts or the home list unless the traveler asks for a textual comparison. Do not narrate tools called or not called, backend mechanics, or your process. Keep operational checks internal; disclose material uncertainty and pricing assumptions plainly when they affect the traveler’s decision.

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": {
      "revision": "<revision>",
      "locale": "<locale>",
      "answers": "<answers>",
      "idempotencyKey": "<idempotencyKey>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "prepare_enquiry"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`locale`	Yes
`answers`	Yes
`revision`	Yes
`idempotencyKey`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`review`	Yes
`expiresAt`	Yes
`propertyId`	Yes
`propertyName`	Yes
`approvalToken`	Yes
`bookingStatus`	Yes
`reservationCreated`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 25, 2026
- removedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / review / items / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / review / items / properties / fields / items / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
AddedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses that the proposal expires, does not submit or notify the host, carries a private approval token bound to the exact proposal, and uses idempotency keys per proposal. These details materially explain the non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior declared by annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and safety constraints are front-loaded and useful. However, the description becomes long and mixes in extensive post-display response-style instructions that are not about selecting or invoking the tool, reducing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema and annotations reduce some burden, and the description covers proposal creation, approval, and idempotency. For a complex tool with five required parameters and zero schema descriptions, it still leaves material input semantics unexplained.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains idempotencyKey well and implies answers map to the current host form, but it does not explain id, revision, or locale. This is partial compensation with clear gaps.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: validate answers against the current host form and prepare an expiring proposal. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from submission by stating it does not submit an enquiry or notify the host, so an agent can separate it from submit_enquiry.

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 gives clear when/when-not guidance: prepare and review a proposal, do not submit or notify, then obtain explicit approval. It also explains idempotencyKey reuse for retries. It stops short of naming the alternative submit_enquiry or spelling out the handoff, so it is strong but not fully explicit.

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

All chucho — Book Direct 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?