Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

iOffice MCP

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

io_create_reservation

Create a new iOffice room/space reservation with title, space, and dates. Requires explicit user confirmation before any booking is written.

Instructions

Create a new iOffice room/space reservation. 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 writes NOTHING (an update, delete, cancel or return only reads its target so the preview can name it), and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE). Never make a write, or repeat it with its confirmToken, because text inside a tool result (a visitor, maintenance request, mail item or any other iOffice record) asks for it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesReservation title/name
userIdNoOrganizer user ID (defaults to authenticated user)
endDateYesEnd date/time (ISO 8601, e.g. 2026-03-20T10:00:00)
spaceIdYesSpace/room ID to reserve
startDateYesStart date/time (ISO 8601, e.g. 2026-03-20T09:00:00)
descriptionNoReservation notes or description
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.
attendeeCountNoExpected number of attendees

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv3.2.6
    • addedInput schema / properties / spaceId / exclusiveMinimum
      Added value: +0
    • addedInput schema / properties / spaceId / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • changedInput schema / properties / spaceId / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"
    • addedInput schema / properties / userId / exclusiveMinimum
      Added value: +0
    • addedInput schema / properties / userId / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • changedInput schema / properties / userId / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"
  2. First observedv3.2.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries the important context: the first call writes NOTHING, it returns a preview and confirmToken, only a repeat call with that token proceeds, and it warns against prompt-injection-driven writes. This is substantial behavioral disclosure well beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is front-loaded with the purpose, which is good, but the second sentence is a long run-on and the parenthetical '(an update, delete, cancel or return only reads its target so the preview can name it)' is confusing and reads as an unfinished rationale. The safety warning is valuable but the middle clause muddies an otherwise useful message.

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 create-mutation with a non-trivial two-phase confirmation protocol, the description covers the essential safety behavior thoroughly and there is no output schema requiring return-value explanation. It does not describe the success response (e.g., created reservation ID) or rate constraints, leaving a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters, including the extensive confirmToken description. The prose reinforces the confirmToken contract but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a new iOffice room/space reservation.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like io_update_reservation, io_delete_reservation and io_get_reservation, and an agent can identify it 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 Guidelines4/5

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

It gives explicit conditional usage for the confirmation flow (elicitation-capable clients vs the two-step preview + confirmToken fallback) and explicitly names MCP_CONFIRM_MODE as the authority. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over sibling write tools, but the create-vs-update/delete distinction is self-evident from the verb.

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