Skip to main content
Glama

io_get_reservation

Read-only

Retrieve a single iOffice reservation by its ID. Use compact view by default or full view for all available fields.

Instructions

Get a single iOffice reservation by ID.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesReservation ID
viewNoResponse shape: "compact" (default) drops fields the response already carries elsewhere; "full" returns every field this server understands. compact strips image/avatar URLs from the response; "full" returns iOffice's payload untouched. No field projection: this server has no verified record of which iOffice fields matter, and inventing one would risk dropping a field a caller needs.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv3.2.6
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / exclusiveMinimum
      Added value: +0
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"
  2. First observedv3.2.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing further: it does not say what happens on a missing ID, whether it returns a single record vs. errors, or anything about response behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely optimized.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple read-only getter with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, this is minimally adequate. It omits not-found/error behavior and any return-shape expectation, but no output schema exists to compensate for the latter.

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 both the 'id' and the nuanced 'view' enum are fully documented in the schema, including the compact/full tradeoffs. The description adds no parameter information beyond 'by ID', 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.

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (get) and resource (iOffice reservation) with the lookup key (by ID), so an agent can distinguish it from io_list_reservations and io_create_reservation. It stops short of naming a sibling or clarifying scope beyond 'single'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no when-to-use or when-not guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites. The only hint is the implicit 'by ID' lookup, which the required schema field already conveys.

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