GLØDI

Confirm with the code

confirm_with_code

Idempotent

Finish an action with the code the person received: book_appointment books the visit, find_my_bookings lists their coming bookings, join_waitlist files the request, send_inquiry sends the question to the clinic, request_demo sends the demo request, and buy_gift_card, register_for_event and order_products make the sale and answer with the payment link (also e-mailed; a free arrangement has none). Only the person can give the code; never guess one. Calling again with the same code answers with the same result.

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": {
      "confirmation_id": "<confirmation_id>",
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "confirm_with_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes	The code the person received and read out.
`locale`	No	Answer language: nb (Norwegian) or en.	nb
`confirmation_id`	Yes	The confirmation_id the action answered with.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`action`	Yes	book, find_bookings, waitlist, inquiry, demo_request, gift_card, event or products.
`booking`	Yes
`inquiry`	Yes
`message`	Yes
`bookings`	Yes
`purchase`	No
`waitlist`	Yes
`demo_request`	Yes
`contact_proof`	Yes	For cancel_booking within one hour. Keep it in this conversation only.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains that this step finalizes bookings, requests, inquiries, and sales, and that sale actions answer with a payment link that is also e-mailed, except for free arrangements. It also reinforces idempotency by saying the same code returns the same result. It does not describe failure behavior for bad codes, so it stops short of full transparency.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then gives necessary action mappings and constraints. The long enumeration sentence is dense, but every element helps route the agent, and there is 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 a full input schema, an output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies the key missing context: which actions require confirmation, where the code comes from, and that codes must not be guessed. It could be more complete by explaining invalid-code handling, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by emphasizing that the code must come from the person and must never be guessed, and by framing confirmation_id implicitly as coming from the prior action's answer.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Finish an action with the code the person received.' It also names the exact sibling actions this confirmation applies to, such as book_appointment, join_waitlist, and buy_gift_card, so an agent can distinguish this confirmation step from the initiating actions.

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 gives clear usage context by saying the tool finishes an action using a code the person received and explicitly warns 'never guess one.' It names the actions that lead to confirmation, but does not cover edge cases such as expired or invalid codes.

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

All GLØDI 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?