agendaforge

create_event

Create a new DRAFT event for the organization: name, type, dates, timezone, and optional venue/virtual details. Never publishes — a human publishes in the app. Subject to the organization's event quota. Org-level: takes no eventId; approval proposals appear on the organization's AI Clients settings page. 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.
`name`	Yes	Event name.
`type`	Yes	Event type.
`endDate`	Yes	End date, YYYY-MM-DD (not before startDate).
`timezone`	Yes	IANA timezone, e.g. Asia/Karachi.
`isVirtual`	No	Whether the event is virtual (default false).
`startDate`	Yes	Start date, YYYY-MM-DD (not in the past).
`venueCity`	No	Venue city.
`venueName`	No	Venue name.
`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.
`description`	No	Event description.
`virtualLink`	No	Join link for virtual events.
`venueCountry`	No	Venue country.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it creates drafts, never publishes, is quota-limited, may route through an approval proposal, and reports the outcome in a status field. This exceeds what annotations alone communicate and does not contradict them.

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 three-sentence description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then delivers high-value caveats: draft-only, quota, approval behavior, and response status. There is no filler, and every clause contributes operational information.

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?

Given 13 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral caveats: draft state, quota, org-level routing, and the response status field. It is slightly incomplete on response shape beyond that status field, but overall the agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's list of 'name, type, dates, timezone, and optional venue/virtual details' mostly restates the schema rather than adding per-parameter meaning. It does add useful context like 'takes no eventId,' but not enough to justify a higher score.

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 and resource: 'Create a new DRAFT event for the organization,' and enumerates the relevant fields. It also clearly differentiates from publishing or updating tools by stating 'Never publishes — a human publishes in the app.'

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?

The description provides clear operational context: events are draft-only, subject to quota, org-level with no eventId, and may either execute immediately or file a proposal depending on organization settings. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as create_session, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to understand when this tool applies.

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?