sync

Book a meeting with a Lucie host

book_meeting

Book a confirmed meeting on a Lucie Sync host's calendar at a specific start time. This is a real write: it creates a calendar event and emails both the host and the booker. Always call check_availability first and use one of the open slots it returns. Before calling, (1) show the booker the specific date/time you're about to book — in their own time zone — and get their explicit confirmation, and (2) collect their name, email, AND a brief reason for the meeting (ask for the reason if not given; it's required and shared with the host).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`handle`	Yes	The host's booking handle, e.g. "@alice" or "alice" (the leading @ is optional).
`reason`	Yes	A short description of why the booker wants to meet (the agenda / purpose). Required — ask the booker for it before booking. Shared with the host alongside the invite.
`startAt`	Yes	The exact ISO-8601 `start` value copied verbatim from a check_availability slot (an absolute UTC instant, e.g. 2026-07-28T17:00:00Z). Do NOT construct this from a local wall-clock time the booker said — that risks the wrong time zone; always copy the slot's start.
`bookerName`	Yes	Full name of the person the meeting is for (the booker).
`bookerEmail`	Yes	The booker's email. The confirmation and calendar invite are sent here.
`viewerTimeZone`	No	The BOOKER's IANA time zone (e.g. America/New_York) — the same one you passed to check_availability. Their confirmation email and reminders are written in this zone, so without it they read the host's zone instead and have to do the time-zone maths themselves.
`durationMinutes`	Yes	Meeting length in minutes. Must be one the host offers.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing real side effects: it "creates a calendar event and emails both the host and the booker," and the reason is "shared with the host." It does not address duplicate bookings or what happens if the slot is taken, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Front-loads purpose in sentence one, then prerequisites in a numbered, scannable checklist. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description still tells the agent what the call produces (event + emails) and what must be gathered first. It leaves unaddressed the failure path when a slot is taken and the non-idempotent double-booking risk.

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 every parameter (including startAt's ISO-8601 verbatim-copy rule and viewerTimeZone's purpose) is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the required-ness of name, email, and reason, adding little beyond the schema baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ("Book") and resource ("a confirmed meeting on a Lucie Sync host's calendar") with a scope qualifier ("at a specific start time") that signals a one-on-one booking. Sibling differentiation from book_group_meeting is only implicit via the singular "a Lucie Sync host's calendar" framing; the alternative is never named.

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?

Gives explicit prerequisites: "Always call check_availability first and use one of the open slots it returns," plus a pre-call confirmation and data-collection protocol. Strong positive guidance, but no when-not-to-use or explicit routing to book_group_meeting for multi-party bookings.

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

All sync tools Inspect

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

Need Help?