Liberdade

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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: restaurant not notified yet, confirmation link sent to email, link expires in 24 hours, and the requirement to use a real address. It does not mention error handling or rate limits but covers the essential workflow.

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 with four sentences, each providing crucial information. It front-loads the core purpose and logically explains the process without unnecessary detail.

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 absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains what happens after the request (email sent, link expires, restaurant not notified). It covers the flow for a 7-parameter tool adequately.

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 value by explaining that the email is for the confirmation link and must belong to the guest. It also discusses optional parameters like phone and message with examples.

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, emphasizing it is not a confirmed booking. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_booking' by highlighting the asynchronous email-based confirmation flow.

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 explains the flow (request held, email sent, link expires) and instructs the user to check their inbox. It implies this is a request vs. a confirmed booking, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'create_booking'.

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

All Liberdade 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., bookings, events, places, restaurants, movies, forms) with clear boundaries. Even similar actions like create_booking and request_reservation are differentiated by service type (appointment vs restaurant table) and payment flow.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 28 tools follow the consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_booking, list_events, search_places). Verbs are appropriate and predictable, with no mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

28 tools is slightly above the typical range, but each tool serves a distinct purpose within the comprehensive neighborhood directory domain. The count is justified by the breadth of features (booking, events, restaurants, movies, etc.).

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers most user needs: searching, viewing details, booking, reservations, events, forms, and more. Minor gaps exist, such as no cancellation tools for bookings/reservations, but the core workflows are well-supported.

Resources

Need Help?