aidoo-mcp-server

aidoo_create_booking

Create a course booking for a member by specifying the member ID and class ID.

Instructions

Erstelle eine neue Kursbuchung für ein Mitglied.

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": {
      "member_id": "<member_id>",
      "class_id": "<class_id>"
    },
    "name": "aidoo_create_booking"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`class_id`	Yes	Kurs-ID
`member_id`	Yes	Mitglieds-ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'create a new course booking' without describing side effects, validations, permissions, error behavior, or whether the booking can fail. This adds nothing beyond the tool's name and the obvious intent of 'create'.

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, short sentence in German that is front-loaded and contains no redundant wording. It is as concise as possible while still conveying the core purpose.

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?

The tool is simple with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, so the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidelines, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's side effects and when to use it.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters ('Kurs-ID' and 'Mitglieds-ID'). The tool description does not add any additional parameter context or examples, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('create') and the resource ('course booking') with an explicit beneficiary ('for a member'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cancel_booking and create_checkin by specifying 'Kursbuchung'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_checkin or cancel_booking. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.