agendaforge

create_sponsor

Create a sponsor after checking list_sponsors first because no unique key exists and the server cannot detect duplicates. Tier, logos, and primary contact cannot be set here; use the UI for those fields. 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	Sponsor name.
`eventId`	Yes	Event id, as returned by list_events.
`website`	No	Sponsor website URL.
`hasBooth`	No	Whether the sponsor has a booth.
`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	Sponsor description.
`customFields`	No	Key→value map of custom fields. Only include keys you want to add or change; existing custom fields are preserved (send a key with value null to remove it). You may key each entry by the field's display name (e.g. 'Portal enabled') or its stored key, the server matches it to the correct custom field, so you do NOT need to guess the exact snake_case key. Values may be strings, numbers, or booleans. Reading the record first (search_contacts / list_sessions / list_sponsors) shows the custom fields already set.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which do not convey the subtle behaviors. The description adds crucial details: no duplicate detection, field limitations, immediate vs. proposal workflow, and the response status field. It also implicitly signals that the response may differ from a simple creation confirmation. This substantially exceeds what annotations provide.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the critical duplicate-check warning, then the field limitations, then the workflow variance. Each sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition. The structure follows the agent's decision-making needs.

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 no output schema, the description tells the agent the response status field indicates execution vs. proposal, but doesn't describe the full response shape (e.g., the created sponsor object). However, it covers the non-obvious behaviors: duplicates, field limitations, request_id semantics, and conditional execution. With 8 params and no output schema, a slightly more detailed response description would be ideal, but the core guidance is complete enough. The missing return format is a minor gap.

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 100% and many parameters have descriptive comments (e.g., request_id, customFields, org). The description adds value by warning about the request_id's idempotency semantics and custom field key matching, which are not fully captured in the schema. It doesn't need to restate each parameter, and it adds meaningful guidance for the trickiest ones. Loses one point because it doesn't explicitly warn that name is required or that website/hasBooth are optional, but the schema already says that.

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 action ('Create a sponsor') and immediately distinguishes itself by warning to check list_sponsors first, which differentiates it from update_sponsor and other sponsor-related tools. It also clarifies what it cannot do (set tier, logos, primary contact), which removes ambiguity. This is a precise verb+resource pairing with clear scope.

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?

The description explicitly says to check list_sponsors first, names the alternative (UI) for fields not supported here, and explains the conditional execution path. It also warns about retries with request_id, making when-to-use and when-not-to-use unmistakable. This is exemplary guidance.

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?