Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UPC-MCP

UPC-MCP

by dlam12138
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

upc_library_book

Submit a single library seat reservation for an explicitly selected room, seat, date, and time window, verifying identity, availability, layout, captcha, and existing bookings before posting.

Instructions

Submit one explicit library seat reservation for the named target.

Call only when the user explicitly selected this room/seat/date/start/end and asked to book. The tool verifies identity, dates, layout, selectable seat, time options, existing reservations and captcha state before the single POST. It never retries, never cancels, never signs in, and never treats a timeout or unknown response as failure. A local receipt is written before the POST; a successful booking is claimed only after a read-only current-reservation check.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "room_id": "<room_id>",
      "seat_id": "<seat_id>",
      "date": "<date>",
      "start_id": "<start_id>",
      "end_id": "<end_id>"
    },
    "name": "upc_library_book"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateYes显式 YYYY-MM-DD。
end_idYes学校返回的结束时间 ID。
room_idYes学校返回的房间 ID。
seat_idYes学校返回的座位 ID。
start_idYes学校返回的开始时间 ID。
session_refNoself

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes far beyond the annotations, which only say the call is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent open-world write. The description discloses the pre-flight validation sequence (identity, dates, layout, selectable seat, time options, existing reservations, captcha), the no-retry/no-cancel/no-sign-in guarantees, the timeout-is-not-failure policy, and the receipt-before-POST plus verify-after-post success protocol.

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?

Front-loaded imperative sentence, then a usage gate, then behavioral guarantees - a sensible order with no filler or repetition. It runs slightly long for a five-field booking call; lines like 'never signs in' add little for the agent's decision.

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 write tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and only generic annotations, the description supplies the missing operational context: validation order, failure semantics, and how success is confirmed. The residual gap is the return payload - a receipt is mentioned but its shape and what the agent should report back are not described.

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 coverage is 83%, so the per-parameter descriptions already carry most of the meaning. The description adds only that all five identifiers must be user-selected and refer to a 'named target'; it does not clarify the sole undocumented parameter (session_ref, const 'self') or the format/source expectations beyond what the schema states.

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 and resource: 'Submit one explicit library seat reservation for the named target.' The 'one explicit' and 'single POST' framing separates it from the discovery siblings (upc_library_rooms, upc_library_seats, upc_library_times) and the listing sibling (upc_library_reservations), though no sibling is named outright.

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?

'Call only when the user explicitly selected this room/seat/date/start/end and asked to book' gives a crisp entry precondition that excludes speculative or discovery use. It does not name the alternatives an agent should call first (e.g. the filters/rooms/seats/times tools), so routing still requires inference from the sibling list.

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