agendaforge

manage_tracks

Create or rename a track for the event. Deleting tracks is not available. 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`	No	The new track's name (create).
`action`	Yes	'create' or 'rename'.
`eventId`	Yes	Event id, as returned by list_events.
`newName`	No	The replacement name (rename).
`trackId`	No	The track id to rename (rename).
`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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds meaningful behavior: the operation may execute immediately or file a proposal for approval depending on organization settings, and the response status field indicates which occurred. It also clarifies that deletion is unsupported. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the key limitation and the conditional approval behavior. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 is complete enough for a mutating tool with a fully described schema: it states the actions supported, the unsupported delete action, and the important proposal-versus-immediate-execution behavior. Since there is no output schema, mentioning the response status field helps the agent interpret the result, though it does not detail the full response shape.

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 every parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level guidance, which is acceptable because the schema carries the full burden. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create or rename a track for the event.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_tracks_rooms (listing) and manage_rooms (rooms, not tracks). Even though sibling alternatives are not named, the action and object are 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: this tool is for creating or renaming tracks, and it explicitly notes that deleting tracks is not available. It does not name sibling tools or state 'use X instead,' but the intended use cases are plainly stated and the delete exclusion prevents misuse.

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?