agendaforge

update_session

Update a session's content, taxonomy, schedule, or custom 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.
`room`	No	The room's exact NAME as returned by get_field_options (not free text).
`tags`	No	Replacement list of PREDEFINED tag names for the session. Each must exactly match a tag from get_field_options — tags are not free text.
`type`	No	New session type.
`level`	No	The level's exact NAME as returned by get_field_options (not free text).
`title`	No	New session title.
`track`	No	The track's exact NAME as returned by get_field_options (not free text).
`format`	No	The format's exact NAME as returned by get_field_options (not free text).
`status`	No	The status's exact NAME as returned by get_field_options (not free text).
`endTime`	No	New end time as an ISO 8601 string.
`eventId`	Yes	Event id, as returned by list_events.
`duration`	No	New duration in minutes (recomputes end time if scheduled).
`isPublic`	No	Whether the session is public.
`language`	No	The language's exact NAME as returned by get_field_options (not free text).
`sessionId`	Yes	The session id to update.
`startTime`	No	New start time as an ISO 8601 string.
`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	New session description.
`isTentative`	No	Whether the session is tentative.
`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.
`maxAttendees`	No	New maximum attendee capacity.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds crucial behavioral context: the update may either execute immediately or be filed as a proposal for approval depending on organization settings, and the response status field indicates which occurred. This is exactly the kind of nuance annotations cannot express.

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: the first names the action and scope, the second surfaces the approval workflow and response status. It is front-loaded, free of filler, and does not repeat structured schema content.

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?

For a 21-parameter write tool with no output schema, the schema carries the parameter documentation well and the description adds the key behavioral caveat. The only notable gap is that the full response shape beyond the status field is not described, but the most important return detail is mentioned.

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%, and the schema already documents parameters thoroughly (e.g., request_id idempotency, exact-name constraints, customFields merge behavior). The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a session'), and enumerates the exact areas it affects: content, taxonomy, schedule, or custom fields. This makes it clear the tool targets existing sessions and implicitly distinguishes it from create_session and delete_session.

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 for when to use the tool: when you need to modify an existing session's content, taxonomy, schedule, or custom fields. It also explains the org-dependent approval behavior, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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?