Skip to main content
Glama
negm17111995

MAQAMI Travel

by negm17111995
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Amend hotel booking

put_bookings_bookingid_amend
DestructiveIdempotent

Correct the holder's name, email, or phone on a confirmed hotel booking to fix typos. Provide the booking ID, current booking email, and updated holder details.

Instructions

Correct the booking holder's name, email or phone on a confirmed hotel booking, for example to fix a typo.

It does not change dates, rooms or guests. To show the customer prices for other dates or guests, use post_bookings_bookingid_alternative_prebooks.

Pass the bookingId, the email currently on the booking and the corrected holder (firstName, lastName, email, optional phone). Confirm the new details with the customer before calling.

Requires the bookingId and the email used to book: the server only returns or changes a booking when they match.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesThe email address currently on the booking, used to verify the customer. A new email goes in holder.email.
holderYesThe corrected booking holder. Send firstName, lastName and email even if only one of them changes.
remarksNoOptional note for the amendment.
lastNameNoThe booking holder's last name, if the customer gives it. Optional.
bookingIdYesThe booking ID from the booking confirmation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed10 schema fields changedv1.0.6
    • changedInput schema / properties / bookingId / description
      Previous value: -"(Required) The unique identifier of the booking to amend."New value: +"The booking ID from the booking confirmation."
    • addedInput schema / properties / email
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The email address currently on the booking, used to verify the customer. A new email goes in holder.email.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / holder / description
      Added value: +"The corrected booking holder. Send firstName, lastName and email even if only one of them changes."
    • changedInput schema / properties / holder / properties / email / description
      Previous value: -"The new email address of the booking holder."New value: +"The holder's email address."
    • changedInput schema / properties / holder / properties / firstName / description
      Previous value: -"The new first name of the booking holder."New value: +"The holder's first name."
    • changedInput schema / properties / holder / properties / lastName / description
      Previous value: -"The new last name of the booking holder."New value: +"The holder's last name."
    • changedInput schema / properties / holder / properties / phone / description
      Previous value: -"The new phone number of the booking holder."New value: +"The holder's phone number."
    • addedInput schema / properties / lastName
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The booking holder's last name, if the customer gives it. Optional.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / remarks / description
      Previous value: -"Optional remarks for the amendment request."New value: +"Optional note for the amendment."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "bookingId",
-  "holder"
-]New value: +[
+  "bookingId",
+  "email",
+  "holder"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the server only changes a booking when bookingId and the original email match, and the agent should confirm new details with the customer before calling. It does not explain what 'destructive' means here (holder data is overwritten and not reversible), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three short, front-loaded paragraphs: scope of change, alternative tool, then how to call it. Minor redundancy in restating the bookingId/email verification requirement in two places costs it the top mark.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, exclusions, alternative routing, required inputs and a pre-call confirmation step. Only the consequence of the destructive overwrite is left unspecified.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the current-vs-new email distinction. The description restates the required triple (bookingId, email, holder) but adds no syntax, format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb (correct), resource (booking holder's name, email or phone) and scope constraint (on a confirmed hotel booking). It explicitly names the sibling it is not (post_bookings_bookingid_alternative_prebooks), so an agent can differentiate without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives the intended use case ('fix a typo'), explicit exclusions ('does not change dates, rooms or guests'), and a named alternative with the condition that selects it ('to show the customer prices for other dates or guests'). Nothing is left to inference.

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