Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

opentable-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

opentable_cancel

DestructiveIdempotent

Cancel an OpenTable reservation by providing restaurant ID, confirmation number, and security token. Includes a confirmation step to prevent accidental cancellations.

Instructions

Cancel an OpenTable reservation. Requires restaurant_id, confirmation_number, and security_token — all three come from opentable_list_reservations or opentable_book. 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; the prompt names the restaurant, date, time and party size from your dining dashboard (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE). Refused when the confirmation_number belongs to a different restaurant.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.
restaurant_idYes
security_tokenYes
database_regionNoOpenTable's sharded-database region for the restaurant. Defaults to 'NA' (North America). Pass the venue's region (e.g. for UK/EU/APAC restaurants) when booking or cancelling outside North America — slot-lock, availability, and cancel route to the wrong database shard, or fail opaquely, when this is wrong. LIMITATION: not auto-derived from restaurant data (OpenTable's availability/booking responses don't surface the shard id), so non-NA bookings must set it explicitly.
confirmation_numberYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.1
    • 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 observedv0.14.3

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the two-step confirmation fallback, the confirmToken lifecycle, the preview details, and the refusal case for mismatched confirmation numbers. This adds substantial operational context beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint already present, and nothing contradicts 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is structured with purpose first, then required inputs, then confirmation flow, then refusal. It is fairly dense, but each sentence carries necessary operational detail; only the reference to MCP_CONFIRM_MODE adds minor overhead.

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 destructive cancellation tool with no output schema, the description covers the full confirmation mechanism, parameter provenance, and a failure condition. It does not describe the success response format, but that is partly mitigated by the confirmation flow details and annotations. Sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying that restaurant_id, confirmation_number, and security_token are outputs of other tools, and by explaining confirmToken's role. database_region is not covered in the description, but the schema already provides a thorough explanation for it, so the overall parameter guidance is solid.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel an OpenTable reservation.' It also names the required inputs and their origin, which distinguishes it from sibling operations like opentable_book or opentable_modify. The purpose is unambiguous and not a restatement of the tool name.

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?

The description gives clear context: the three required values come from opentable_list_reservations or opentable_book, and it explains the confirmation flow and refusal condition. However, it does not explicitly contrast cancellation with modification (opentable_modify) or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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