Yoya Booking

Book a meeting

book_meeting

Book a meeting on a host's page. Use a slot id from list_available_times (a time not in that list will be rejected). email is required — the confirmation and calendar invite go there. When the page offers more than one meeting option, pass meetingType. If the page has requiredFields, answer them in fieldAnswers keyed by the exact field label. On success returns the booking id and a link the guest can use to cancel or reschedule.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`slug`	Yes
`email`	Yes
`slotId`	Yes
`purpose`	No	One line on why the guest wants to meet.
`timezone`	No	Guest IANA timezone; defaults to the host's.
`requestId`	No	Reuse this ID when retrying the same confirmed booking request.
`meetingType`	No	Required when the page offers more than one option.
`fieldAnswers`	No	Answers to the page's requiredFields, keyed by label.

Schema Changelog

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

Changed1 schema field changedSep 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / requestId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Reuse this ID when retrying the same confirmed booking request.",
+  "format": "uuid",
+  "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that invalid slots will be rejected, that email receives the confirmation and calendar invite, that requiredFields must be answered, and that the response includes a cancellation/rescheduling link. This goes well beyond a bare action statement.

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 compact, information-dense, and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence addresses a distinct operational detail with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, it covers the critical calling requirements and return behavior. It could additionally clarify slug/name, but those are reasonably inferable from the schema and context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 56%, so the description adds meaningful context for undocumented parameters: slotId must come from list_available_times and email is the delivery target. It also clarifies the conditional semantics of meetingType and how fieldAnswers should be keyed.

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 clearly identifies the action: booking a meeting on a host's page. The verb 'Book' plus the resource 'a host's page' distinguishes this from the sibling tools that list or retrieve bookings/times.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It provides concrete preconditions and conditional usage: use a slot id from list_available_times, pass meetingType when multiple options exist, and fill fieldAnswers for requiredFields. It does not explicitly contrast with get_booking, but the operational guidance is clear enough.

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

All Yoya 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action and resource: book a meeting, fetch a booking, inspect a booking page, and list available slots. There is no overlap, and the intended use of each tool is immediately clear.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: book_meeting, get_booking, get_booking_page, list_available_times. The verbs and nouns clearly indicate the operation and target.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools cover the complete guest-side booking flow without unnecessary redundancy. This is a well-scoped size for a focused booking server.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the essential guest journey: view page, check availability, book, and retrieve booking status. A direct cancel or reschedule tool is missing, though the booking result provides a manage link, making this a minor gap rather than a dead end.

Resources

Need Help?