Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

opentable-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

opentable_find_slots

Read-only

Find available reservation slots at a specified restaurant for a date, time, and party size, returning reservation tokens to book promptly.

Instructions

List available reservation slots at a specific OpenTable restaurant for a date + party size. Returns each slot's reservation_token (use it with opentable_book — tokens expire quickly, book promptly). Slots may be attributes=['default'|'bar'|'highTop'|'outdoor'] and type=Standard|Experience|POP. You can pass a slot's reservation_token + slot_hash straight to opentable_book without a separate opentable_get_restaurant call — book auto-resolves the dining area. (OpenTable's availability response carries only the seating category, not the numeric dining-area id, so that id is resolved at book time from the booking-details page.) If this errors with "operation ... not yet observed on this tab", open any OpenTable restaurant page in your browser once (the graphql bridge needs to see the page's own availability query fire first), then retry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateYesYYYY-MM-DD
timeYesHH:MM (24h) — anchor time; slots come back relative to this
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 OpenTable's payload untouched. No field projection: this server has no verified record of which OpenTable fields matter, and inventing one would risk dropping a field a caller needs.
party_sizeYes
restaurant_idYes
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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.19.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / view
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Response 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 OpenTable's payload untouched. No field projection: this server has no verified record of which OpenTable fields matter, and inventing one would risk dropping a field a caller needs.",
+  "enum": [
+    "compact",
+    "full"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.14.3

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say read-only. The description adds that availability is not held, that tokens must be used promptly, that dining-area resolution is automatic, and that a one-time page load may be needed. This is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the structured metadata.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Dense but efficient. Every sentence adds operational value: core behavior, next step, response field, cross-tool handoff, and an error prerequisite. No filler.

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?

Given this is a multi-step integration tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, outputs, handoff to booking, and an error prerequisite. Minor gap: no statement about empty availability responses.

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?

The schema covers the parameters, and the description adds cross-tool semantics: which parameter is the anchor, what the response token is for, and that view=dining_area changes the response shape. It doesn't restate every schema description, which is appropriate.

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 precise action and object: 'Given a restaurant_id, list available reservation slots for a date and time.' It also separates listing from booking, which distinguishes it from the booking sibling.

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?

Clearly says this tool only lists slots and that booking happens via another tool, including the token handoff. It doesn't explicitly enumerate when not to use it, but the placement and warning are strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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