agendaforge

create_form

Create a new event form as a DRAFT (never active/published). 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	The form's internal name (required).
`brief`	No	Natural-language description of the form to generate (e.g. 'a CFP form collecting talk title, abstract, and speaker bio'). Omit to build from `fields` instead.
`fields`	No	Explicit field list (non-AI path). Provide this instead of `brief`.
`eventId`	Yes	Event id, as returned by list_events.
`formType`	No	The form's type. Defaults to 'custom' when omitted.
`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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the form is created as a draft, it is never published, it may execute immediately or file a proposal for approval depending on org settings, and the response status field reveals which path occurred. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and is not contradictory.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The most important constraint — DRAFT, never active/published — is front-loaded, and the approval/execution nuance follows naturally. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the critical outcomes: draft creation, immediate execution vs. proposal approval, and the status field indicating which occurred. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the response shape would be helpful, but the reference to the response status field provides enough orientation for an agent. Overall it is nearly complete.

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 schema fully documents every parameter. The description does not add additional meaning to individual parameters, but it also does not need to because the schema already covers them. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Create a new event form'. It also identifies the key distinguishing trait — the form is created as a DRAFT and never active/published — which separates it from tools like update_form or list_forms. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever you need to create a new event form. It also communicates an important exclusion — the form will never be active/published — and notes the approval-vs-immediate execution behavior. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say 'use list_forms to view drafts', so it stops short of a 5.

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?