UberSync MCP Server

Book Ride

book_ride

Book a ride from a chosen estimate. Receive a confirmed ride ID, fare, driver, vehicle, and ETA.

Instructions

Book a demo ride using the selected estimate. Returns a consistent ride ID, fare, driver, vehicle, and ETA.

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": {
      "pickup": "<pickup>",
      "destination": "<destination>"
    },
    "name": "book_ride"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pickup`	Yes
`rideType`	No
`estimateId`	No
`rideTypeId`	No
`destination`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds useful behavioral detail by stating that the tool returns a consistent ride ID, fare, driver, vehicle, and ETA. It does not discuss side effects like duplicate bookings, idempotency, or authorization, but it does not contradict the annotations either.

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 one front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately conveys the action, the prerequisite, and the return values, so every clause earns its place.

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 description gives a minimum viable picture: book a demo ride using an estimate and receive ride details. However, it leaves gaps around how the estimate maps to parameters, what 'consistent' means, and the structure of the returned fields, especially since there is no output schema.

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

Parameters1/5

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, but it does not. It only alludes to a 'selected estimate' without naming estimateId or rideTypeId, and it never mentions the required pickup and destination parameters or the rideType options.

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 states a specific action ('Book') and resource ('demo ride'), and adds the scope 'using the selected estimate.' This distinguishes it from estimate-only tools like estimate_ride and from a real request tool like request_ride.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The phrase 'using the selected estimate' provides clear usage context: this should be called after an estimate has been chosen. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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