get_bookingRetrieve a booking's totals, seats, attendee names, and customer ID. Optionally include attendee email and phone for complete booking information.
One booking with its totals, seats and attendee names, plus the customer ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| booking_id | Yes | Booking ID (bkg-...) | |
| include_contact_details | No | Include attendee email and phone |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the return payload composition (totals, seats, attendee names, customer ID), which is useful. It does not disclose pagination, error behavior, or the effect of include_contact_details, but the annotations cover the safety profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the resource and immediately states the key return fields. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with full schema coverage and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that include_contact_details controls extra fields, but the schema already documents that parameter. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the description listing the main return contents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get a booking') and adds what the response includes: totals, seats, attendee names, and customer ID. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like get_performance_bookings, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it is not.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a single-booking lookup by ID, which is clear context. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_performance_bookings or list_events, nor does it mention exclusions. The sibling list provides some context, but the description itself offers no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.