Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

booking

by sk.sos-battery
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_partners

Partnerské servisy a miesta, kde si zákazník vie rezervovať výmenu batérie. Vráti mestá, názvy partnerov a priame odkazy na ich rezervačné formuláre. Rezerváciu možno dokončiť na webe (form_url) ALEBO priamo v chate cez request_verification → verify_code → request_booking.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
form_typeNoTyp formulára: booking = rezervácia termínu výmeny (jediný s výberom termínu, default) · booking2 = rezervácia tovaru bez termínu · booking3 = foto rezervácia (zákazník odfotí doklady/batériu na webe — odporuč, keď nepozná parametre) · booking5 = kalkulačka batérií a spotrebičov · baterkar = výber správnej batérie podľa vozidla

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / form_type / description
      Previous value: -"Typ formulára: booking = rezervácia termínu výmeny (jediný s výberom termínu, default) · booking2 = objednávka tovaru bez termínu · booking3 = foto objednávka (zákazník odfotí doklady/batériu na webe) · booking5 = kalkulačka batérií a spotrebičov · baterkar = výber správnej batérie podľa vozidla"New value: +"Typ formulára: booking = rezervácia termínu výmeny (jediný s výberom termínu, default) · booking2 = rezervácia tovaru bez termínu · booking3 = foto rezervácia (zákazník odfotí doklady/batériu na webe — odporuč, keď nepozná parametre) · booking5 = kalkulačka batérií a spotrebičov · baterkar = výber správnej batérie podľa vozidla"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns cities, names, and form URLs, and explains the booking workflow. However, it lacks information about data freshness, authentication requirements, or any side effects of using the tool.

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?

The description is extremely concise with only two sentences. The first sentence defines the tool's purpose clearly, and the second explains the follow-up workflow, with no unnecessary words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately describes what the tool returns (cities, names, links). It also connects the output to the booking process. However, it omits the existence of the form_type parameter, which is important for specifying the type of form, though the schema covers it. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a simple data retrieval tool.

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?

The description does not mention the form_type parameter at all. Since schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already explains each enum value, the description adds no additional parameter semantics, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool returns partner services and places for battery replacement, specifying the returned data: cities, partner names, and direct links to reservation forms. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like request_booking by explaining the alternative booking paths.

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 description provides context on when to use the tool (to get partner info before booking) and clearly outlines two alternatives for completing a reservation: via the form URL directly or through the chat verification sequence. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.

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

All booking 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