get_bookingFetch full details for one Smoobu booking by ID, including normalized pricing, fees, payout, timestamps, and raw audit data.
Full detail of one booking by id: normalized row, price elements (Other Fees = 13% IVA, Host Fee = commission, Payout), created_at / modified_at and the raw Smoobu object for audit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Smoobu booking id (the export's Position column). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does usefully disclose the return payload (normalized row, price elements, raw Smoobu object). However it is silent on the operation's safety profile, permission requirements, and behavior for a missing/invalid id, which for an unannotated tool is a meaningful gap.
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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the payload breakdown. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical price-element jargon compresses a lot into one clause.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and the single required param is covered. Only error/not-found behavior and permission needs are unaddressed, which are minor for a one-param read lookup.
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% and the single id parameter is already documented in the schema as the Smoobu booking id (Position column). The description adds only the redundant 'by id' framing, so the schema does the real work; baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Full detail of one booking by id') and enumerates exactly what the caller gets back, which clearly separates it from the plural get_bookings and the other list-style siblings. It stops short of an explicit contrast with those siblings, but the 'one booking by id' scoping makes the distinction inferable.
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 a single-record lookup keyed on id but gives no when-to-use guidance: it never says to reach for this only when the id is known, nor when to prefer get_bookings or changes_since instead. The agent must infer the selection criteria entirely from the tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.