agendaforge

delete_sponsor

Destructive

Permanently delete a sponsor. Destructive and disabled by default; an organizer must allow direct destructive access and this tool. 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.
`eventId`	Yes	Event id, as returned by list_events.
`sponsorId`	Yes	The sponsor id to delete.
`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

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds essential behavioral context: deletion may be immediate or routed to an approval workflow depending on organization settings, and the tool may be disabled by default. It also clearly states that the response status field indicates the outcome. This goes well beyond the annotations and is critical for an agent to understand side effects and consequences.

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 concise, front-loaded with the destructive intent, and packs critical workflow behavior into a few sentences without redundancy. Every sentence adds valuable context, and the warning is placed first, which is appropriate for a destructive operation.

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?

For a destructive write operation with no output schema, the description effectively explains the behavioral variability (immediate vs. proposal), the access requirement, and how to interpret the response. Given the tool's complexity and risk, this is complete and highly actionable.

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?

The input schema already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, including the request_id idempotency semantics. The description does not add much beyond the schema, but it indirectly supports the semantics by explaining proposal-vs-immediate outcomes, which complements the request_id idempotency field. Since the schema covers parameter details thoroughly, a score of 4 reflects the schema leverage with a small descriptive boost.

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 states the tool deletes a sponsor and emphasizes it is destructive and disabled by default. It also explains the two possible outcomes (immediate execution or proposal filing), which distinguishes it from other tool actions (e.g., update_sponsor, list_sponsors). This is unambiguous and task-specific.

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 warns about the destructive nature, notes that an organizer must enable direct destructive access, and tells the agent to check the response status field to know whether the action executed immediately or was filed as a proposal. This is strong guidance for when and how to invoke the tool, and it implies caution before calling it.

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?