Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Ringske

by be.ringske
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Search guests

search-guests
Read-onlyIdempotent

Searches the guest list. Answers questions like "who has RSVP'd yes for the dinner?", "who hasn't answered yet?", "who is vegetarian?" or "which cards still have to go out?". Each result is one invitation with its size and its answer per moment.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search-guests"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum results, default 50.
queryNoPart of a name, alias, email address, city or note.
offsetNoSkip this many results, for paging.
statusNoRSVP status: yes, no, pending (not answered yet) or answered (yes or no). On the given moment, or on any moment without moment_id.
categoryNoGuest category name, e.g. "Family" or "Colleagues".
card_sentNoOnly invitations whose paper card was sent (true) or not yet (false).
moment_idNoOnly invitations to this moment (see list-moments). Combined with status, the status applies to this moment.
invited_byNoWhose guest: partner_a, partner_b or both.
has_dietary_notesNoOnly invitations with (true) or without (false) dietary notes.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return grain (one invitation per result, with per-moment answers), which is genuine context beyond annotations, but says nothing about result volume, default limits, or paging behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded; the example list is dense but each example maps to a real filter combination (status, card_sent, has_dietary_notes). Slightly list-heavy but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter search with a fully documented nine-parameter schema and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, typical questions, and result grain. The only real gap is breadth/cost behavior (how many results, paging expectations), which the schema partially addresses via limit and offset.

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 all nine parameters, including both enums and the moment_id/status interaction, are documented in the schema itself. The description adds only a framing sentence about result shape and does not elaborate on any parameter meaning beyond what the schema states, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Searches the guest list") and immediately clarifies the unit of return ("Each result is one invitation with its size and its answer per moment"). The example questions distinguish it from an aggregate sibling like get-rsvp-summary and from single-record get-guest.

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 four example questions give concrete, recognizable situations for using the tool, covering RSVP filtering, non-response, dietary needs, and card logistics. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit exclusions a 5 requires.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Ringske toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources