Check whether a guest submitted the check-in form for a booking, returning Submitted or None to confirm completion status.
Whether the guest has completed the check-in form for a booking the host owns (None or Submitted). No form content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bookingId | Yes | The booking 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 readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by stating the possible outcomes (None or Submitted) and explicitly clarifying that form content is not returned, which goes beyond the structured metadata.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the primary result and includes a scope qualifier and an explicit exclusion ('No form content'). There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.
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 one-parameter, read-only status tool with rich annotations, the description is largely complete: it gives the possible values, the ownership constraint, and what is not included. It does not describe error behavior for non-owned bookings or invalid IDs, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity of the tool.
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 the bookingId parameter is documented as 'The booking id.' The description adds that the booking must be one the host owns, but it does not provide additional format, constraints, or usage details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly identifies the resource (guest check-in form status), the scope (booking the host owns), and the expected output values (None or Submitted). It lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'Get' or 'Returns', but the tool name plus description make the purpose unambiguous, and 'No form content' helps distinguish it from content-retrieval tools.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool by scoping it to host-owned bookings and excluding form content. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when the caller is not the host or when form content is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.