Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

easytable-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

easytable_modify_booking

Destructive

Modify an existing restaurant booking's date, time, party size, or details by booking ID. Requires confirmation before changes apply.

Instructions

Modify an existing booking (date/time/party size/details). Like create, it reads the Turnstile token from your signed-in widget tab. Get the existing booking id from easytable_find_bookings. The change replaces the whole booking: email, comment and company are required — pass the booking's current values to keep them (ask the user if unknown), or '' to clear them; the newsletter opt-in is reset. 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 makes NO network call.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesRestaurant id — the `id` in a book.easytable.com/book/?id=<id> link.
dateYesBooking date, ISO YYYY-MM-DD (from easytable_list_dates).
langNoWidget language code (en, se, da, …). Defaults to en.en
nameYesGuest name on the booking.
timeYesTime slot HH:MM, 24h (from easytable_list_times).
typeYesBooking area/type id from easytable_list_types.
emailYesGuest email. REQUIRED — the booking's current email, or '' to remove it (also drops the confirmation mail).
eventNoOptional event id.
mobileYesGuest mobile in E.164 (e.g. +46701234567).
commentYesFree-text note / special requests. REQUIRED — the booking's current comment (e.g. allergy notes), or '' to remove it.
companyYesCompany name. REQUIRED — the booking's current company, or '' for none.
personsYesParty size.
existingYesId of the existing booking to modify (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. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.2.7
    • changedInput schema / properties / time / description
      Previous value: -"Time slot HH:MM (from easytable_list_times)."New value: +"Time slot HH:MM, 24h (from easytable_list_times)."
    • removedInput schema / properties / time / minLength
      Removed value: -1
    • addedInput schema / properties / time / pattern
      Added value: +"^([01]?\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d$"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 \"confirmation-required\" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Changed8 schema fields changedv1.1.3
    • changedInput schema / properties / comment / description
      Previous value: -"Free-text note / special requests."New value: +"Free-text note / special requests. REQUIRED — the booking's current comment (e.g. allergy notes), or '' to remove it."
    • changedInput schema / properties / company / description
      Previous value: -"Optional company name."New value: +"Company name. REQUIRED — the booking's current company, or '' for none."
    • addedInput schema / properties / email / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "format": "email",
+    "pattern": "^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "const": "",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / email / description
      Previous value: -"Guest email."New value: +"Guest email. REQUIRED — the booking's current email, or '' to remove it (also drops the confirmation mail)."
    • removedInput schema / properties / email / format
      Removed value: -"email"
    • removedInput schema / properties / email / pattern
      Removed value: -"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"
    • removedInput schema / properties / email / type
      Removed value: -"string"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "type",
-  "date",
-  "time",
-  "persons",
-  "name",
-  "mobile",
-  "existing"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "type",
+  "date",
+  "time",
+  "persons",
+  "name",
+  "mobile",
+  "email",
+  "comment",
+  "company",
+  "existing"
+]
  4. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  5. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / email / pattern
      Previous value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"New value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"
  6. First observedv0.0.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only flag destructive/idempotent hints; the description adds substantially more — whole-booking replacement semantics, that email/comment/company must be re-passed or explicitly cleared, that the newsletter opt-in is reset, and that phase 1 makes NO network call. The confirmToken contract (never reused, never invented, ignored under elicitation) is also disclosed.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the paragraph flows from purpose to prerequisites to mutation semantics to confirmation. A few phrases are duplicative of the schema (e.g. 'never invented, never reused'), but density is justified by the two-phase confirmation protocol.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 14-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, replacement semantics, token sourcing and both confirmation modes. It omits what the successful response looks like and any error/auth edge cases, which are minor given no output schema exists.

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; the description goes beyond per-field text by explaining the cross-cutting replacement rule for email/comment/company ('pass the booking's current values to keep them... or '' to clear them') and the instruction to ask the user when values are unknown. It is genuinely additive despite the already-rich 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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Modify an existing booking (date/time/party size/details).' It is immediately distinguishable from siblings easytable_create_booking, easytable_cancel_booking and easytable_find_bookings, and it names find_bookings as the id source.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear operational context: obtain the booking id from easytable_find_bookings, the Turnstile token comes from the signed-in widget tab, and the confirmation path is spelled out per client capability. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g. when to cancel or create instead), so it is not a full 5.

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