Skip to main content
Glama

Appointment Booking

by dev.hatchloop

verify_business

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up what we know about a business in our supply network: its contact channels, capabilities, and when the record was last verified. This is a DIRECTORY LOOKUP - it does not contact the business.

EXAMPLE USER QUERIES THAT MATCH THIS TOOL: user: "Confirm smb_imp_abc actually does emergency plumbing" -> call verify_business({"smb_id": "smb_imp_abc", "capability_to_verify": "emergency_plumbing"})

WHEN TO USE: Use before sending communications or scheduling if you have an unverified SMB identifier, or if the agent's task requires confirmed capability (e.g., 'I need to be sure they do emergency plumbing'). WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use if the SMB was returned from find_business within the last 24 hours — those results are already verified. COST: free - no key required LATENCY: ~500ms

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
smb_idYes
capability_to_verifyNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the call as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the added value comes from the statements that this is a directory lookup and does not contact the business. It also discloses cost and latency, which help an agent decide whether this call is the right choice under constraints.

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 content is organized into short labeled sections with the core semantics first and no filler. The example, use guidance, and cost/latency notes each serve a distinct decision-making purpose.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Without an output schema, the description names the returned business facts (contact channels, capabilities, last-verified date) so an agent knows what to expect. It could be fully complete by specifying what happens for an unknown smb_id or an unverified capability, but the core call context is well covered.

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 descriptions are 0% covered, so the description must compensate; it does through a concrete example mapping smb_id and capability_to_verify to values. However, it never states that capability_to_verify is optional or whether it expects a controlled vocabulary, leaving some ambiguity for a non-example call.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('look up what we know about a business') and immediately clarifies the non-contact directory nature, setting it apart from any live-action tool. The WHEN NOT TO USE section also disambiguates it from find_business, which is the closest sibling.

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?

It explicitly names when to use the tool (before communications/scheduling with unverified SMB identifiers or when confirmed capability is required) and when not to use it (within 24 hours after find_business). The example user query grounds the trigger in a realistic agent task.

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

All Appointment Booking toolsInspect
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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a distinct stage or concern: link preflight vs import, business discovery vs verification, scheduling, async status/outcome, cost preview, and health. The closest pair (check_booking_link and import_booking_url) is explicitly differentiated as a free guard vs actual registration.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern such as find_business, verify_business, schedule_appointment, and get_status. The only real deviation is self_test, which is a standard health-check name but not verb_noun.

Tool Count5/5

Nine tools is well-scoped for an appointment-booking service that also needs async operation tracking, cost estimation, and health checks. Each tool has a clear role and none feel redundant or tacked on.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the main lifecycle: find or import an SMB, verify it, schedule/cancel/reschedule, poll status, retrieve outcomes, and preview costs. Minor gaps exist—send_message and capture_lead are referenced as downstream operations but not exposed, and there is no direct tool for listing supported platforms.

Resources