Kirah Local Services

Get reschedule options

get_reschedule_options

Read-only

Returns up to five real alternate times and the current fee or approval consequences for one grant-authorized booking. It does not hold, move or cancel the appointment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`grant`	Yes	The capability token from this booking's create_booking response (confirmation.grant). Required: without it there is no way to establish that you are the agent that made this booking. Tampered, wrong-booking, wrong-tenant and revoked grants all answer invalid_grant, indistinguishably; an authentic grant past the appointment start answers expired_grant. These are the GRANT codes, not the payment page's invalid_token/expired_token — through contract 2.11 this action answered the latter, whose prose wrongly told callers their payment link was broken.
`limit`	No	How many options to return. Default 2, hard maximum 5; a larger value is CLAMPED to 5 rather than rejected. The ceiling is deliberate: the primary consumer is a voice agent reading options aloud, and five spoken times is more than a caller can hold in their head.
`latest`	No	Optional exact ISO 8601 instant — the latest replacement time to consider. Default: now + 14 days. Must be after `earliest` and at most 31 days after it; anything else answers invalid_latest. Supply it explicitly whenever `earliest` is more than 14 days out.
`tenant`	Yes	The tenant to operate on: the provider.tenant_slug value from the tenant's /.well-known/kirah.json manifest (the tenant's full domain, e.g. <slug>.kirah.ai).
`earliest`	No	Optional exact ISO 8601 instant — the earliest replacement time to consider. Default: now + 2 hours (a slot the customer cannot physically reach is not an option). Natural-language times are not accepted.
`booking_ref`	Yes	The reference create_booking returned (its idempotency key). It must be the SAME booking the supplied grant was issued for; a mismatch answers invalid_grant, indistinguishably from a forged grant.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuine value beyond them: options are not held or reserved, and the response surfaces current fee/approval consequences — a behavioral trait an agent needs before promising a customer a fee-free reschedule. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first states the deliverable (times plus fee/approval consequences), the second the critical exclusions. Information is front-loaded with zero filler.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, rich annotations, an output schema covering return shape, and param-level descriptions of error codes and defaults, the short description completes the picture. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is absent.

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%, and each parameter's schema description is exceptionally detailed (grant error-code semantics, limit clamping behavior, earliest/latest defaults and constraints). Per baseline, the description need not compensate; it adds no parameter detail but nothing is missing either.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — returns alternate times and fee/approval consequences for one grant-authorized booking. The second sentence explicitly excludes hold/move/cancel behaviors, cleanly distinguishing it from reschedule_booking and cancel_booking in the sibling list.

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 'does not hold, move or cancel the appointment' clause is an explicit when-not statement telling an agent this is a preview, not a mutation. It stops short of naming the alternatives directly (reschedule_booking, cancel_booking), though the sibling names plus the grant-authorized scoping make the intended position in the workflow clear.

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

All Kirah Local Services 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

Disambiguation4/5

Each booking lifecycle tool is clearly distinct, and the search/availability tools are generally separated by scope. The closest pair is find_available_services and get_availability, but their descriptions sufficiently distinguish cross-business availability checks from per-service calendar lookups.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, such as create_booking, get_availability, list_services, and reschedule_booking. The verbs are predictable and communicate the action clearly.

Tool Count5/5

Ten tools is a well-scoped size for a local services booking server. Each tool addresses a distinct part of the workflow without unnecessary redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core booking journey: discovery, availability, booking creation, status checks, rescheduling, and cancellation. A minor gap is the lack of a list-bookings endpoint, though payment is explicitly handled outside MCP, so core functionality remains intact.

Resources

Need Help?