Belgium Art — places, tours and transfers

Подготовить заявку на экскурсию

prepare_tour_request

Read-onlyIdempotent

Prepare an unsent Telegram draft for an individual guided tour in Belgium. The client must review and manually send it; Felix then confirms terms. Unknown optional details must be omitted. No booking, payment or notification.

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": {
      "city": "<city>"
    },
    "name": "prepare_tour_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`city`	Yes
`date`	No	YYYY-MM-DD; do not guess.
`time`	No	HH:MM, local time at meeting/departure.
`guests`	No	Requested group size, not confirmation of vehicle capacity.
`comments`	No
`duration`	No
`interests`	No
`meeting_place`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: output is an unsent draft, a human must send it, and downstream booking/payment/notification are out of scope. The 'omit unknown optional details' rule is a useful behavioral constraint not present in the schema.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loading the artifact produced, then the human-in-the-loop requirement, then the data-hygiene rule, then the out-of-scope list. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 8 parameters (only 1 required), no output schema, and modest schema coverage, the description covers the important gaps: what is produced, who sends it, and how to handle missing data. It stops short of describing what the returned draft looks like or how city/program ambiguity is resolved.

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 only 38%, and the description compensates mainly with the global rule that unknown optional details must be omitted. It adds nothing about the required 'city' parameter (which the schema titles ambiguously as 'Город или программа') or about how free-form fields like duration, interests and meeting_place should be filled.

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?

The description states a specific verb and artifact ('prepare an unsent Telegram draft') plus a domain scope ('individual guided tour in Belgium'), which separates it from the transfer-request sibling. It does not explicitly name prepare_transfer_request, so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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 sets a clear usage context: the client reviews and manually sends, Felix confirms terms afterwards, and unknown optional details must be omitted. Exclusionary boundaries ('no booking, payment or notification') are stated, though there is no explicit instruction on when to prefer the sibling transfer tool.

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

All Belgium Art — places, tours and transfers 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?