plumbing-booking

Request a Booking (sends SMS confirmation code)

request_booking

Use this only after the user explicitly asks to start a Johnson Bros. booking and confirms their own contact details, service address, issue, and preferred windows. It sends a six-digit SMS code and does not schedule a visit. Do not claim an appointment exists until confirm_booking returns status:confirmed and booked:true.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Customer full name
`email`	No
`notes`	No	Issue description / anything the technician should know
`phone`	Yes	Customer mobile number — receives the 6-digit confirmation code
`address`	Yes
`service`	Yes	Requested service, e.g. "water heater replacement"
`confirmed`	Yes	True only after the user explicitly asks to start this booking request and send the SMS code
`referral_code`	No
`time_preference`	No	Fallback time-of-day preference if none of the preferred windows is open	any
`preferred_windows`	No	Preferred arrival windows from get_availability (start_time/end_time ISO strings)
`promotion_review_requested`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`status`	Yes
`success`	Yes
`next_step`	Yes
`booking_id`	No
`error_code`	No
`expires_at`	No
`code_sent_to`	No
`review_sandbox`	No
`in_service_area`	No
`attempts_allowed`	No
`service_area_notice`	No
`sandbox_verification_code`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 4, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / referral_code
```
Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 300,
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
First observedAug 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: sending an SMS is an external side effect, the tool does not create an appointment, and the booking is not final until confirm_booking confirms it. The annotations already signal non-read-only and non-idempotent, so the description's extra clarity about the actual workflow is valuable and does not contradict any annotation.

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 three crisp sentences: precondition, core action/side effect, and confirmation caveat. Every sentence earns its place and the most important usage restriction is front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential preconditions, the SMS side effect, the fact that no appointment is scheduled, and the downstream dependency on confirm_booking—enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and avoid misrepresenting state.

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?

The input schema already provides good descriptions for key parameters like name, phone, notes, service, address, confirmed, and preferred_windows. Schema coverage is about 64%, and while the description refers conceptually to contact details, service address, issue, and preferred windows, it does not explain individual parameters. This is acceptable because the schema handles most of the semantic load.

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 names a specific action ('request a booking'), states it sends a six-digit SMS code, and explicitly clarifies it does not schedule a visit. This clearly differentiates it from confirm_booking, which is the sibling that actually confirms an appointment.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives a precise precondition: use only after the user explicitly asks to start a Johnson Bros. booking and confirms their contact details, service address, issue, and preferred windows. It also tells the agent not to claim an appointment exists until confirm_booking returns status:confirmed and booked:true, effectively naming the alternative tool and the handoff condition.

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

All plumbing-booking tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct action or resource: pricing is split into general services vs. issue-specific quotes, booking is split into availability, request, and confirmation, and document search is separate from live business data. Explicit usage boundaries prevent meaningful overlap.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern like get_availability, request_booking, and confirm_booking. A few exceptions such as business_info, emergency_help, fetch, and search break the pattern slightly, but the naming remains readable and predictable overall.

Tool Count5/5

Eleven tools is a well-scoped size for a plumbing-booking and information server. Every tool earns its place and there is no obvious redundancy or bloat.

Completeness3/5

The core new-booking flow is covered well: availability, request, confirmation, quotes, service-area checks, emergency help, and document search. However, there is no cancellation, rescheduling, or booking-lookup tool, leaving post-booking lifecycle requests without a direct path.

Resources

Need Help?