Agenda Rio

request_reservation

Request a table at a restaurant. THE RESTAURANT IS NOT NOTIFIED YET: the request is held and a confirmation email is sent to the address you provide, and only when that person clicks the link does the restaurant receive it. Tell the user to check their inbox — the link expires in 24 hours. Use a real address belonging to the person you are acting for; the confirmation link is deliberately not returned to you. This is a request, not a confirmed booking: the restaurant confirms out of band.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Name the table is under.
`email`	Yes	The guest's own email — the confirmation link is sent here.
`phone`	No	Optional phone number for the restaurant to reach the guest.
`message`	No	Optional note (occasion, dietary needs, seating preference).
`partySize`	Yes	Number of people (1–30).
`place_slug`	Yes	Restaurant place slug from search_places.
`requestedAt`	Yes	Desired date and time as an ISO instant. Must be in the future.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: the request is held, email sent with link, restaurant notified only after link click, and the link expires. It also clarifies the request is not a confirmed booking, which is critical for agent expectations.

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 three sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and includes essential behavioral details without fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 description is mostly complete given the tool's complexity and absence of output schema. However, it does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a reservation ID or status) or mention error handling, which would help the agent manage the response.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra context for the 'email' parameter: 'The confirmation link is deliberately not returned to you' and 'Use a real address belonging to the person you are acting for,' which are not in the schema. This adds meaningful semantic guidance.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Request a table at a restaurant.' It uses a specific verb ('request') and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like 'create_booking' by emphasizing this is a request, not a confirmed booking.

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 explicit guidance: the restaurant is not notified yet, a confirmation email is sent, the link expires in 24 hours, and tells the user to check their inbox. It also advises using a real address and clarifies this is not a confirmed booking, helping the agent decide when to use this tool.

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

All Agenda Rio tools Inspect

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

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that prevent ambiguity. Overlaps like create_booking vs request_reservation are clarified by domain (appointments vs restaurant) and mechanics.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_booking, list_events, search_places). The same conjugation style (snake_case) is used throughout, with no mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

At 28 tools, the set is slightly larger than the typical well-scoped range (3-15), but each tool corresponds to a distinct feature of the neighborhood directory, making the count reasonable for the breadth of functionality.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers all major user-facing actions: searching, browsing, booking, purchasing, and retrieving information. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose of a neighborhood directory.

Resources

Need Help?