Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

easytable-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

easytable_cancel_booking

DestructiveIdempotent

Cancel an existing restaurant booking using its booking id and the mobile number it was made with, after previewing and confirming the cancellation.

Instructions

Cancel an existing booking. Look up the booking id first with easytable_find_bookings (it needs the mobile the booking was made with). Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE). The first call only looks the booking up (a read); it cancels nothing.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesRestaurant id — the `id` in a book.easytable.com/book/?id=<id> link.
mobileYesMobile the booking was made with, E.164 (e.g. +46701234567).
bookingIdYesBooking id from easytable_find_bookings.
confirmTokenNoONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 \"confirmation-required\" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. First observedv0.0.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true but say nothing about confirmation flow. The description adds high-value context beyond them: the first call is a non-destructive lookup ("it cancels nothing"), the token must never be invented or reused, and the token is ignored when elicitation is supported. No contradiction with the annotations, which correctly mark the overall operation as a write.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads what the tool does and the prerequisite before the longer confirmation caveat, and every sentence carries information. The confirmation paragraph is dense with parentheticals and a mode-flag reference, which costs some readability but not correctness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the phase-1 response shape (preview plus confirmToken) and the terminal behavior. Combined with the total confirmation protocol, an agent has everything needed to call it safely and correctly.

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, and the description adds real operational meaning: it ties bookingId and mobile to their source (easytable_find_bookings, E.164 mobile used at booking time) and constrains confirmToken to the fallback path only. It stops short of explaining field formats, which it reasonably delegates to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Cancel an existing booking") and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling easytable_find_bookings by naming it as the prerequisite lookup step rather than an alternative cancel path. An agent can tell what this tool does and what it does not do without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states the precondition (fetch bookingId via easytable_find_bookings, which itself needs the mobile) and the confirmation protocol, including the two-step fallback when the client lacks elicitation. It also names the governing mode flag (MCP_CONFIRM_MODE), leaving no branch to inference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools