Campo Belo

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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fully discloses the asynchronous nature: restaurant is not notified until email confirmation, link expires, confirmation link is not returned to the agent. It clearly states this is not a confirmed booking.

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 concise, consisting of four sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action and logically presents the key behavioral points.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (asynchronous booking request) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects well. It explains the confirmation process and user expectation. Minor gap: no mention of error handling or failure scenarios.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the purpose of the 'email' parameter (the guest's own email) and the flow, but does not add significant new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 distinguishes itself from a confirmed booking by emphasizing it is a request, not a confirmed booking, and explains the email confirmation flow. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'create_booking'.

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 provides explicit usage instructions: tell the user to check their inbox, the link expires in 24 hours, use a real address. It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives by emphasizing that the restaurant is not notified until confirmation. It could be improved by directly comparing to 'create_booking'.

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

All Campo Belo 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

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action on a specific resource (e.g., create_booking vs create_checkout vs reserve_event_tickets). Descriptions clearly differentiate purposes, and no two tools overlap in functionality.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_availability, list_categories, search_dishes). Verbs like get, list, create, request, rsvp are used uniformly, making the set predictable.

Tool Count4/5

28 tools is above the typical 3-15 range, but the server covers a broad domain (places, events, movies, booking, store, etc.). Each tool serves a clear purpose, so the count is justified for the scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is extensive, covering searching, details, reviews, booking, events, menus, etc. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no cancel/update operations), but they are likely intentional given the user-facing nature of the server.

Resources

Need Help?