findtime.io MCP Server

List my booking requests

list_my_booking_requests

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists every request this guest sent to one host, with status and explicit times. Requires the guestHistoryToken returned with the request. Every result has a status listed in the output schema. temporarily_unavailable indicates a temporary service failure.

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": {
      "guestHistoryToken": "<guestHistoryToken>"
    },
    "name": "list_my_booking_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`_endUserId`	No	Optional opaque per-call end-user attribution token populated by the MCP host, not the LLM. Accepts a non-PII hash or token, excluding raw email addresses, names, or platform user IDs.
`guestHistoryToken`	Yes	guestHistoryToken returned with the request; grants access to this guest's requests to that host.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hint`	No
`error`	No
`reason`	No
`status`	Yes
`summary`	No
`requests`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious context: an auth token is required to authorize the read, and the special status 'temporarily_unavailable' signals a transient service failure rather than an empty/absent record — a genuinely useful behavioral signal an agent cannot get from annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core listing behavior before the token prerequisite and the status caveat. Minor redundancy in 'Every result has a status listed in the output schema' when an output schema already exists, but it sets up the temporarily_unavailable note.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return-shape explanation is not required, and the description covers auth, scope, and the one exceptional status value. What remains thin is how this differs operationally from the host-side sibling, but for a two-parameter read tool the coverage is close to complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the host-populated _endUserId. The description only restates that guestHistoryToken is required and grants access, adding essentially no semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists every request this guest sent to one host') plus scope ('this guest', 'one host'), which distinguishes it in intent from the host-side list_booking_requests. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied by the possessive scope rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a prerequisite ('Requires the guestHistoryToken returned with the request') but never states when to pick this over the sibling list_booking_requests or what to do if the token is missing/expired. Usage is inferable from the guest-scoped wording, but no alternative is routed to.

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

All findtime.io MCP Server 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.