shelf-nu-mcp

shelf_bookings_calendar

Read-only

Retrieve bookings within a specified date range using ISO 8601 dates. Filter by workspace, status, or search to manage schedules.

Instructions

Bookings overlapping a date range (ISO 8601 dates).

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": {
      "start": "<start>",
      "end": "<end>"
    },
    "name": "shelf_bookings_calendar"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`end`	Yes	ISO date/time
`orgId`	No	Workspace/organization ID. Defaults to SHELF_ORG_ID or your current workspace.
`start`	Yes	ISO date/time
`search`	No
`statuses`	No	Comma-separated booking statuses

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'overlapping' semantics (vs. fully-contained ranges), a genuine behavioral detail, but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or return shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse for a simple read tool, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally sized.

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 read-only filtered-list tool with no output schema and 80% schema coverage, the essentials are present. But the description omits any routing guidance against shelf_list_bookings and does not explain how search/statuses interact with the date range.

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 coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents start, end, orgId, and statuses. The description's 'ISO 8601 dates' merely restates the schema's 'ISO date/time' and adds no syntax or format meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (bookings) and scope (overlapping a date range), so the agent knows what it retrieves. However, it offers no differentiation from the very close sibling shelf_list_bookings, leaving ambiguity about which to pick.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as shelf_list_bookings. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'overlapping a date range'.

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

Deploy Server