agendaforge

send_speaker_reminder

Destructive

Email a speaker a reminder about an outstanding portal task. 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.
`html`	Yes	Email body as HTML.
`taskId`	Yes	The speakerTasks id being chased.
`eventId`	Yes	Event id, as returned by list_events.
`subject`	Yes	Email subject line.
`contactId`	Yes	The contact (speaker/exhibitor) id to email.
`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.
`followupNumber`	No	Which follow-up this is (1-based).
`recipientEmail`	Yes	Recipient email address.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains that the tool may either execute immediately or file a proposal for approval depending on organization settings, and that the response status indicates which happened. This is useful non-obvious behavior. Annotations already communicate the non-read-only and destructive nature, so the description does not need to repeat that.

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 sentences and front-loads the main action, then adds the key behavioral caveat. Every sentence contributes necessary information without fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 usefully points to the response status field, which is essential for understanding the outcome. The schema covers the parameters thoroughly, and the annotations cover the write/destructive nature. A slight gap is that the description does not name the status field or possible values, but the provided context is likely sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool.

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?

All 9 parameters are already described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add param-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, though it does reference the response status field, which helps the agent interpret the outcome. It does not degrade or contradict the schema.

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 ('Email') and resource ('a speaker ... about an outstanding portal task'), making the tool's core purpose immediately clear. It also naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_email and send_speaker_message by scoping the action to portal-task reminders.

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 implies the correct use case — sending a reminder about an outstanding portal task — but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as send_email, send_speaker_message, or draft_email. There are no clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, though the intended context is inferable.

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?