List and filter Shelf bookings by status, search, sort, and pagination to review reservations, ongoing, overdue, and completed records.
Search/list bookings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-based) | |
| orgId | No | Workspace/organization ID. Defaults to SHELF_ORG_ID or your current workspace. | |
| search | No | ||
| sortBy | No | e.g. from, to, name, status | |
| status | No | ||
| perPage | No | Items per page | |
| sortOrder | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent with them (no contradiction). But the description adds zero behavioral context beyond the annotations — no mention of pagination, filtering behavior, or result scope.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single two-word fragment. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness — nothing is front-loaded because there is essentially no content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and only 57% schema coverage, the description is far too thin to let an agent call this correctly. It does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation or explain the return shape.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 57%, so several parameters (search, status, sortOrder) lack documentation. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, leaving the coverage gap unfilled.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a verb and resource ('Search/list bookings'), so the agent knows the general operation. However it is vague about scope and filtering, and gives no differentiation from siblings like shelf_bookings_calendar or shelf_get_booking. It is a bare verb+resource with no distinguishing detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus shelf_bookings_calendar or shelf_get_booking, nor any prerequisites or context. The description offers nothing beyond the operation name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.