agendaforge

update_sponsor

Update a sponsor's details 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.
`name`	No	New sponsor name.
`eventId`	Yes	Event id, as returned by list_events.
`website`	No	New sponsor website URL.
`hasBooth`	No	Whether the sponsor has a booth.
`sponsorId`	Yes	The sponsor id to update.
`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 sponsor description.
`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.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description reveals a non-obvious behavior: depending on organization settings, the update either executes immediately or files a proposal for approval, with the response status indicating which occurred. This goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and provides useful workflow context not available elsewhere.

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 one tight sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then appends the essential conditional approval behavior. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 9-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the key non-obvious outcome: immediate execution versus proposal filing, and the response status field. The schema covers parameter semantics, and the approval workflow is stated, leaving little critical context missing.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, including detailed guidance for request_id idempotency and customFields merge/removal behavior. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a sponsor's details or custom fields'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like create_sponsor and delete_sponsor, and from update_contact/update_session by specifying the sponsor resource.

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 that this tool is for modifying an existing sponsor's details or custom fields. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can route to this tool correctly.

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?