Skip to main content
Glama

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName the table is under.
emailYesThe guest's own email — the confirmation link is sent here.
phoneNoOptional phone number for the restaurant to reach the guest.
messageNoOptional note (occasion, dietary needs, seating preference).
partySizeYesNumber of people (1–30).
place_slugYesRestaurant place slug from search_places.
requestedAtYesDesired date and time as an ISO instant. Must be in the future.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the restaurant is not notified, confirmation email sent, link expires, and it's 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?

Concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then critical behavioral caveats, then usage instructions. No superfluous text.

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 fully explains the request lifecycle and what to expect, making it complete for agent usage.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds behavioral nuance for email (ensure real address, link not returned to caller) beyond schema, justifying a 4.

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 it requests a table, explicitly contrasts with a confirmed booking, and distinguishes 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?

Provides clear context: tell user to check inbox, use real address, link expires. Lacks explicit alternatives but context implies it.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: search, get, list, create, submit, etc. Potential overlaps like create_booking vs request_reservation vs reserve_event_tickets are clarified by descriptions distinguishing appointment booking, restaurant table requests, and event ticket holds.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., list_services, get_place, create_booking). No mixing of styles, and verbs accurately describe the operation.

Tool Count4/5

28 tools is slightly above typical range but well-justified given the breadth of the site (places, events, movies, food, booking, forms, etc.). Each tool serves a clear purpose without feeling bloated.

Completeness4/5

Covers major read and action scenarios for a neighborhood directory. Missing update/delete operations for places and bookings, but those are likely not exposed via this API. Minor gaps like canceling reservations are handled externally.

Resources