Agenda SP

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

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fully discloses that the request is not sent until email confirmation, link expires in 24 hours, and this is not a confirmed booking. All key behaviors are transparent.

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 very concise with every sentence adding value. It is front-loaded with the purpose and immediately clarifies the asynchronous nature.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: the flow, what the agent must instruct the user, and the tool's limitations. It is complete for the complexity of a request-based reservation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context to the 'email' parameter by explaining it is used for confirmation link and the link is not returned. This exceeds baseline.

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 'Request a table at a restaurant' and differentiates from a confirmed booking, aligning with the sibling tool 'create_booking'. It uses specific verb-resource pair ('request a table').

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?

Explicitly states when to use (requesting a table), what happens (email confirmation, link expiration), and what to tell the user (check inbox, use real email). Implicitly excludes cases where confirmed booking is needed, guiding agent to sibling tool.

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

All Agenda SP 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are mostly distinct with clear descriptions. Some overlap in actions that require user to click a link (create_booking, create_checkout, request_reservation, etc.), but each targets a different domain (booking, store, restaurant, event tickets, RSVP). Minor ambiguity possible but descriptions clarify.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, search_places). No deviations or mixed conventions.

Tool Count4/5

28 tools is slightly high for a neighborhood directory, but each serves a specific function (search, booking, events, movies, offers, etc.). The scope justifies the count, though some tools like list_blog_posts and list_faqs might be considered niche.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers search, place details, categories, menus, events, movies, offers, booking, and forms. Missing update/delete operations for places or user management, but these are likely out of scope for a read-only directory. Core queries and actions are well-supported.

Resources

Need Help?