Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Multi Calendar

by co.lumman
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Invite people into a circle

circles_invite
Destructive

Invite people by address - family, friends or a team, who share when they are busy once they join - into one of the person's own circles: an existing one by its id, as circles_list names it, or one by its name, matched whatever its case and made where the person has none by it - two of the person's circles whose names differ only in case are refused, naming both ids. Lumman emails each address newly invited a letter under the person's address, replies going to them, naming the circle and saying how to join; only an account signed in at that address can join. A circle's name that screens as a prompt attack sends nothing. The answer names the circle's id, whether it was made, each address sent a letter under invited, each already invited there - sent nothing new - under kept, and under unsent each whose letter could not go, which was not invited. An account sends at most 20 such letters in any 24 hours, those sent from its page included; a call asking for more than remain invites nobody and says how many can go and when more free.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoThe circle's name, where no id is passed.
circleNoAn existing circle's id, as circles_list names it.
addressesYesAddresses to invite.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / reissue
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Give an address already invited a new link, stopping the one it was sent.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that real emails are sent under the person's address with replies routed to them, that only an account signed in at that address can join, that prompt-attack-screened circle names send nothing, and that a 20-letters-per-24h cap causes the whole call to invite nobody with a wait message. This is exactly the side-effect and failure context a destructive, open-world tool needs.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Purpose is front-loaded and nearly every clause carries information, but the description is a dense wall of run-on clauses ('made where the person has none by it', 'replies going to them') that is harder to parse than it needs to be. Splitting the side effects, response shape, and rate limit into separate sentences would preserve content and improve scanning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description fully specifies the return shape (circle id, whether created, and the invited/kept/unsent buckets) plus the rate-limit failure mode. For a 3-parameter mutation tool with open-world side effects, nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: case-insensitive name matching, create-on-miss behavior, and the case-collision refusal. It also maps the addresses array to per-address outcomes (invited/kept/unsent) rather than leaving the array opaque.

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 — inviting addresses into one of the person's own circles — and explicitly defines the two circle-resolution modes (existing id 'as circles_list names it', or a name created on demand). An agent can distinguish this from circles_list and the other circle siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the selection logic between id and name (name is used where no id is passed, created if none exists, refused on case-only collisions naming both ids) and points to circles_list as the source of ids. It lacks explicit 'do not use this when…' exclusions or routing to alternatives for the other invite-like flows, 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 Multi Calendar 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