Interlagos

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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and fully discloses behavior: the restaurant is not notified immediately, a confirmation email is sent, the link expires in 24 hours, and the confirmation link is deliberately not returned to the caller. It honestly describes the tool as a request, 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is moderately concise, with key points front-loaded and emphasized with all caps. It is information-dense but could be slightly shorter; however, every sentence adds value and no fluff is present.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (asynchronous request, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It explains the flow, what the caller should do, and what the user can expect. No missing critical information.

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 does not add significant parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., email description in schema already says 'the confirmation link is sent here'). The description reinforces the email usage but does not enhance semantic understanding of other parameters.

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 requests a table at a restaurant and distinguishes it from a confirmed booking by explicitly stating 'This is a request, not a confirmed booking: the restaurant confirms out of band.' This differentiates it from the sibling tool 'create_booking' which likely handles confirmed bookings.

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 instructions: use a real email belonging to the person you're acting for, tell the user to check their inbox, and notes the link expires in 24 hours. It also implies when not to use (if immediate confirmation needed, use create_booking) by contrasting with the behavior of this tool.

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

All Interlagos 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct Wix resource or action: bookings, events, store, forms, places, menus, etc. The four booking-related tools are clearly separated by domain (appointments, restaurant tables, paid events, free events), with descriptions that eliminate ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set follows a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_, get_, list_, search_, submit_). Minor deviations exist: get_reviews and get_event_tickets return collections (could be list_), and rsvp_event uses an abbreviation, but these do not affect clarity.

Tool Count4/5

At 26 tools, the set is larger than the typical 3–15 well-scoped range, but the server covers a broad umbrella of Wix integrations for a neighborhood directory. Each tool maps to a distinct function, so the count is justified by the scope, though it is on the heavier side.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers discovery and transactional workflows: searching places/dishes, viewing menus/reviews/guides/offers, booking appointments and tables, reserving event tickets, purchasing products, submitting forms, and reading site info. Minor gaps exist (no cancel/update operations), but these are handled via external checkout links and are acceptable for a directory.

Resources

Need Help?