time_block_detailsFetches a salon calendar time block by reservation ID, returning break or reserved-slot details and optionally bypassing the local cache for current data.
One calendar time block, such as a break or a reserved slot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fresh | No | Skip the local cache | |
| reservationId | Yes | Time block id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds no behavioral context—it does not mention caching (relevant to the 'fresh' parameter), lookup behavior, or what happens when a reservationId is missing.
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?
It is a single sentence with no filler, so it is concise. However, it is an under-specified fragment that does not front-load the operation, leaving the reader without a clear action.
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 read-only detail tool with no output schema, the description should at least indicate what is returned (time block fields) and how caching works. Instead it only names the resource, leaving key call context unstated.
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 description coverage is 100% and documents both 'reservationId' and 'fresh' with clear meanings. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
The description gives a noun-phrase definition ('One calendar time block, such as a break or a reserved slot') but never states the action (fetch/retrieve details) nor distinguishes it from sibling calendar tools. It essentially restates the title 'Time block' with examples, so an agent learns the domain but not the operation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus calendar_agenda, calendar_month, or any other sibling, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and title.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.