resource_upcoming_bookingsRetrieves upcoming bookings for a specific staff member or station, helping you check a resource's next scheduled appointments in the salon calendar.
Next bookings of one staff member or station.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fresh | No | Skip the local cache | |
| resourceId | Yes | Resource id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are future-dated and scoped to a single resource; it says nothing about the lookahead window, result cap, or capping/pagination behavior, and the schema's "fresh" flag (skip local cache) is left unexplained in prose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single fragment with no filler, so there is no waste. However, brevity here comes from under-specification rather than tight writing: the one sentence omits information an agent needs and carries no structure beyond the core phrase.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the minimum bar is met. Still missing is what an agent most needs to call it correctly: how far ahead "next" reaches and roughly what comes back, with no output schema to fill that gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented at the field level. The description contributes one useful nuance — that resourceId can be either a person or a room — but adds nothing about the cache-skipping "fresh" parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the verb-noun idea ("Next bookings") and that the resource is a "staff member or station," which clarifies what resourceId means. But it never defines the scope of "next" (time horizon, result count) and gives no hint at how it differs from siblings like calendar_agenda or staff_schedule.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is named. An agent reading this cannot tell whether to prefer it over calendar_agenda, calendar_open_slots, or staff_schedule for looking ahead at a resource's schedule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.