Bogeyland

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

A4.4/5.0

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 held, a confirmation email is sent with a 24-hour expiry, and the link is not returned to the agent. No contradiction.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no waste. Every sentence adds information about behavior or usage.

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?

Tool is simple; no output schema. Description explains the workflow and agent's role. Could briefly mention the response structure, but overall satisfactory.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context for the email parameter (must be a real address), but otherwise does not add significant meaning beyond schema.

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 'Request a table at a restaurant' and distinguishes it from a confirmed booking by emphasizing this is a request. Among siblings, 'create_booking' and 'reserve_event_tickets' are present, making the distinction clear.

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?

Explicitly instructs the user to check their inbox, use a real email address, and informs that the restaurant is not notified until confirmation. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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

All Bogeyland 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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct domain (e.g., booking, restaurant reservation, event RSVP, movie showtimes) with clear descriptions that prevent confusion. Overlapping verbs like 'create' are used for different resource types, and the descriptions explicitly distinguish their contexts.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 28 tools follow a strict verb_noun pattern with underscores, e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_events. No mixing of conventions or inconsistent verb styles.

Tool Count4/5

28 tools is at the upper end of reasonable for a broad neighborhood directory server covering places, bookings, events, movies, store, forms, and more. While each tool serves a distinct purpose, the count feels slightly high for a single server.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers core discovery and booking initiation (search, detail, book, reserve), but lacks lifecycle operations like cancel, update, or list user's existing bookings. Several operations require external checkout or confirmation links, creating workflow gaps.

Resources

Need Help?