agendaforge

schedule_session

Place, move, swap, or unschedule a session. Returns {scheduled:false, conflicts:[...]} instead of writing when there is a room or speaker clash. 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.
`mode`	Yes	The schedule operation to perform.
`roomId`	No	The room id (schedule/move).
`endTime`	No	ISO 8601 end time (schedule/move).
`eventId`	Yes	Event id, as returned by list_events.
`sessionId`	Yes	The session id.
`startTime`	No	ISO 8601 start time (schedule/move).
`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.
`otherSessionId`	No	The session id to swap with (swap).

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses key non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: on conflict it returns {scheduled:false, conflicts:[...]} instead of writing, and it may either execute immediately or file an approval proposal depending on org settings, with a status field indicating the outcome. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs.

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 dense sentences, no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, followed by the most important behavioral caveats. Every clause contributes useful 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?

With no output schema, the description covers the critical non-standard return shape on conflicts and the proposal-vs-immediate distinction. It omits some conditional parameter requirements (e.g., which fields are needed for each mode), but the schema descriptions already annotate those, so the tool is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 already fully documents each parameter. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond echoing the mode values in prose, so the baseline of 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 names the resource (session) and a precise set of operations ('Place, move, swap, or unschedule'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_session, update_session, and delete_session. An agent can immediately tell this is the scheduling-mutation tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes it implicitly clear that this tool is for schedule operations, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as check_schedule_conflicts, update_session, or delete_session. There is no 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance, leaving selection partly to inference.

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?