Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tabelog-mcp

tabelog-mcp

by ingrid-wu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Add a note to a booking

add_booking_note

Saves user feedback about a booking's outcome or changes to local history for future reference.

Instructions

Saves something the user said about a booking (how it went, who came, what to change next time) to the local history.

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": {
      "booking_id": "<booking_id>",
      "note": "<note>"
    },
    "name": "add_booking_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteYes
booking_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world mutation. The description adds that the note is saved to "local history," which confirms local-only behavior, but it does not describe return values, permissions, or side effects beyond that.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds useful context about what is saved and where.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter mutation tool, the description covers purpose and note content adequately. It leaves gaps around booking_id semantics and expected behavior, but annotations and schema still provide the core safety and validation details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives useful meaning for the "note" parameter via examples, but it does not explain "booking_id" at all, leaving one of two required parameters semantically undocumented.

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?

The description states a specific verb ("Saves") and resource ("something the user said about a booking") plus the destination ("local history"). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_booking_history.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The parenthetical examples ("how it went, who came, what to change next time") imply when to use it for capturing user feedback. However, it does not state when not to use it or name an alternative tool.

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