shelf-nu-mcp

shelf_checkout_booking

Check out all assets in a reserved booking by submitting its booking ID, completing the checkout step for that reservation.

Instructions

Check out a reserved booking (all assets).

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": {
      "bookingId": "<bookingId>"
    },
    "name": "shelf_checkout_booking"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`orgId`	No	Workspace/organization ID. Defaults to SHELF_ORG_ID or your current workspace.
`timeZone`	No	IANA time zone, e.g. Europe/Berlin. Defaults to the server's local zone.
`bookingId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it checks out all assets and that the booking must be reserved, but it does not explain side effects such as status transitions, permissions, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 mutation, though the brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with no output schema and moderate schema coverage, the description is too thin. It omits what happens to the booking status, what happens to individual assets, required permissions, and any return information, relying almost entirely on annotations for safety context.

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 coverage is 67%, and the required bookingId parameter has no schema description. The description does not mention any parameters or add syntax/format meaning beyond what the schema provides, leaving the key required parameter under-documented.

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 verb ('Check out') and resource ('booking'), plus the scope ('all assets') and precondition ('reserved'). This distinguishes it from siblings like shelf_checkin_booking and shelf_reserve_booking, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 phrase 'reserved booking' implies the tool should be used only after a booking has been reserved, but it gives no explicit when-not guidance or alternative tool names for related operations like check-in, cancel, or reserve.

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

Deploy Server