agendaforge

add_contact_note

Record a PRIVATE internal CRM note about a contact. The contact never sees it. Use only for internal context the organizer wants remembered — to ask a speaker to do something, use send_speaker_message instead. Depending on the organization's settings, this either executes immediately or files a proposal for approval; the response status field says which happened.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`org`	No	Organization slug. Only needed when you belong to multiple organizations; must be one returned by list_my_orgs.
`body`	Yes	The note text to save on the contact.
`eventId`	Yes	Event id, as returned by list_events.
`contactId`	Yes	The Convex id of the contact to annotate (e.g. from a contact search/list tool).
`request_id`	Yes	Client-generated unique id for this write (e.g. a UUID). Retries with the same request_id return the original executed or proposed outcome instead of creating a duplicate. Never reuse a request_id for different arguments.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It meaningfully reveals that the contact never sees the note, that execution may be immediate or routed to an approval proposal depending on organization settings, and that the response status field indicates which path occurred.

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 focused sentences: purpose and privacy, when to use versus an alternative, and behavioral expectations. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 fully documented schema and the absence of an output schema, the description provides the necessary context an agent needs: privacy semantics, usage boundaries, approval workflow ambiguity, and a pointer to the response status field. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context about privacy and approval but does not add significant per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Record a PRIVATE internal CRM note about a contact.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from send_speaker_message by explaining the note is for internal organizer context, not for communicating with the contact.

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 states when to use the tool ('only for internal context the organizer wants remembered') and names the alternative for a different need ('to ask a speaker to do something, use send_speaker_message instead'). This gives an agent clear decision criteria.

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

All agendaforge 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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools use distinct resource+action patterns and descriptions actively disambiguate similar cases, but several pairs remain easy to confuse: search vs semantic_search, send_email vs send_speaker_message, and the cluster around submission handling (decide_submission, set_submission_status, update_form_pipeline). The descriptions help, but the overlap is more than a single edge case.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set overwhelmingly follows verb_noun snake_case (create_session, update_sponsor, list_events) and prefixes are applied predictably. Minor deviations like semantic_search, bare search, check_in_attendee, and list_tracks_rooms break the pattern slightly, but they are still readable and not chaotic.

Tool Count1/5

55 tools is an extreme surface for an MCP server, even for a broad event-management platform, and it exceeds the 50+ threshold for severe over-scoping. Many tools are micro-variants of the same domain—multiple send_* tools and several submission-status tools—creating high selection burden for an agent.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of event, CRM, session, sponsor, form, and email workflows, but there are notable lifecycle gaps: events can be created and read but not updated or deleted, email templates have no update/delete path, and full form submission details and approval actions are absent. These are significant but not catastrophic because much of the core scheduling and contact workflow is covered.

Resources

Need Help?