Book lab hardware in GLPI, setting the authenticated user and re-checking for conflicts right before the reservation is saved.
Create a GLPI reservation. Always sets users_id from the authenticated session. Re-validates for conflicts immediately before booking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ISO-8601 end | |
| start | No | ISO-8601 start | |
| comment | No | ||
| duration_minutes | No | ||
| reservation_item_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals two non-obvious behaviors: the reservation always uses the authenticated session's users_id, and conflicts are re-validated immediately before booking. This is meaningful transparency for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by essential behavioral notes. Every word earns its place.
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 tool with 5 parameters, low schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this is too sparse. It does not explain what reservation_item_id refers to, how start/end/duration interact, whether a confirmation is returned, or what happens if the revalidation fails.
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 coverage is only 40%, with reservation_item_id, comment, and duration_minutes lacking descriptions. The description does not explain these parameters or clarify the relationship between start/end and duration_minutes. The note about users_id is useful but refers to a session-derived value, not an input parameter.
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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a GLPI reservation.' This distinguishes the tool from its siblings such as check_availability, find_available_cluster, and cancel_reservation through the create action.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites such as checking availability first, and no exclusion criteria. The behavioral notes about users_id and revalidation are helpful but do not constitute usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.