TableSpark Restaurants

Booking link

get_booking_link

Read-onlyIdempotent

Link to the restaurant's booking form on its own website, carrying the chosen date, party size and time. The guest completes and confirms the booking there.

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": {
      "restaurant_id": "<restaurant_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_booking_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	No	Date in YYYY-MM-DD (UK local date).
`time`	No	Time in 24-hour HH:MM (UK local time).
`party_size`	No	Number of guests, including the person booking.
`restaurant_id`	Yes	The restaurant_id returned by search_restaurants (for example "oak-nosh").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is handled. The description earns credit by drawing the crucial boundary that no reservation is created here and the guest finishes the booking on the restaurant's site, which prevents an agent from reporting a confirmed table. It does not state link validity or expiry behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the result is front-loaded and the second sentence immediately qualifies the side-effect boundary. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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?

For a read-only link generator with full annotations, a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential mechanics and the hand-off point. The remaining gap is behavioral edge cases: what is returned when a restaurant has no online booking form, and whether the produced link has any expiry.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by explaining why date, party size and time exist at all: they are carried into the generated link rather than used to query availability. It still does not clarify what happens when the optional parameters are omitted.

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 names the concrete artifact (a link to the restaurant's booking form on its own website) and the data it carries, so an agent knows this returns a URL rather than performing a booking. It distinguishes itself functionally from transactional siblings by stating the guest completes and confirms the booking elsewhere, though it never names an alternative like get_order_link or get_gift_voucher_link explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: call this when a guest wants to book at the restaurant through its own site with a specific date, party size and time. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of how this differs from check_table_availability or what to do if the restaurant has no booking form.

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

All TableSpark Restaurants 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?