Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

TeamMeet

by io.github.theguysaccount
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Set up a booking page

set_up_booking_page
DestructiveIdempotent

Put booking on a website: make a Meetful booking page (meetful.com/) and get the code that embeds it — a one-line button, the page inline, an iframe for site builders without scripts, or a plain link. Every booking gets its own video room, made when it is booked. With a key minted while signed in, the page is that account's and live at once. Otherwise it waits for its person: give them the claim link this returns — they sign in with Google once and it takes bookings from then on, with the code already on their site.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "set_up_booking_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesWhose booking page this is — shown on it.
siteNoThe website it goes on — shown to the person when they claim it.
blurbNoA sentence or two under the heading.
emailNoThe person's address — shown on the claim page so they know it was made for them. Nothing is sent to it.
hoursNoOpen hours, like "Mon-Fri 09:00-17:00" or "Mon-Thu 9am-5pm; Fri 9am-1pm". Default Monday to Friday, 9 to 5.
titleNoThe page's heading, like "Book a call with Ada".
handleNoThe address wanted: meetful.com/<handle>. Optional — one is made from the name.
lengthsNoHow long a meeting can be, in minutes — any of 15, 30, 45, 60, 90. The person booking picks one; the first is shown first. Default 30.
timezoneNoIANA time zone the hours are in, like America/New_York.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: a dedicated video room is created per booking, the page is account-scoped when a key is used, and the claim-link path is dormant until redeemed. It does not address the destructive/idempotent hints at all — nothing says what happens if the handle already exists or if it is called twice — which is the main residual gap.

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?

Purpose and return artifact are front-loaded in the first sentence, with provisioning caveats after. The final sentence is long and clause-heavy ('give them the claim link this returns — they sign in with Google once and it takes bookings from then on, with the code already on their site'), but no sentence is padding.

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?

With nine parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does: the embed snippet variants and the claim link are both named. What is missing for a tool flagged destructive and idempotent is any statement about handle collisions, re-invocation, or what a failed claim leaves behind.

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 every one of the nine parameters is already documented with examples (hours format, allowed lengths, IANA timezone, 'Nothing is sent to it' for email). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema carries, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first clause states a specific verb and resource: 'make a Meetful booking page (meetful.com/<handle>) and get the code that embeds it'. It goes further by enumerating the four embed forms (button, inline, iframe, plain link), so an agent knows exactly what artifact comes back and can distinguish this from booking_page_status or book_time without opening a schema.

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?

It clearly splits the two operating modes: with a key minted while signed in the page is live immediately; otherwise it provisions a claim link that the recipient must redeem with Google sign-in. That is real context for deciding whether to call it now or hand off, but there is no explicit exclusion or named alternative (e.g. checking an existing page first via booking_page_status).

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

All TeamMeet toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources