Locate where to book an item by returning its booking page, SharePoint list, and site booking directory, verifying the user's lab before opening another lab's scope.
Where to book an item: its page (the calendar is embedded there), the SharePoint list behind it, and the booking directory of the whole site. Booking is per lab: confirm the user's lab (ipa_status) before opening another lab's scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id_or_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose safety and mutation behavior, but it does not state whether booking is read-only, creates or changes records, requires additional permissions, or returns URLs versus data. The per-lab constraint is useful but insufficient for a booking-related tool.
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 two sentences and front-loads the booking-resource locations before the lab prerequisite. It is reasonably tight, though the phrase 'opening another lab's scope' is somewhat vague.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented single parameter, the description should clarify the return behavior and parameter format. It provides useful resource and lab context but leaves core operational details missing.
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?
The only parameter, id_or_name, has 0% schema description coverage and is not explained in the description. The description says 'item' but does not clarify whether the value should be an item ID, name, URL, or something else.
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?
The description says where to book an item and names three resources: its page, the SharePoint list behind it, and the booking directory. However, it is unclear whether the tool returns booking locations, opens a booking UI, or performs the booking itself, and it does not clearly distinguish itself from siblings such as ipa_page, ipa_item, or ipa_open.
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?
It gives one useful prerequisite: confirm the user's lab via ipa_status before opening another lab's scope. It does not say when to use this tool instead of related siblings like ipa_page or ipa_item, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.