TempGuru Event Staffing
Server Details
W-2 event staffing data for agents: 300+ US/CA markets, roles, rates, lead times, compliance.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct area: availability, cities, compliance, pricing, and roles. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their purposes.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (check_, get_, get_, get_, get_), making it easy to predict functionality from names.
With 5 tools, the server covers the essential informational needs for event staffing—roles, cities, pricing, availability, and compliance—without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool set provides comprehensive information for the domain: all required inputs (roles, cities) and outputs (pricing, availability, compliance). No obvious gaps for an informational server.
Available Tools
6 toolscheck_availabilityCheck AvailabilityARead-onlyInspect
Check expected staffing availability for an event. Returns lead-time guidance based on city tier and how far out the event is. Perfect for 'Can you staff my event on [date] in [city]?', 'What's the lead time for booking brand ambassadors in [city]?', or 'Is it too late to staff a [date] event?' questions. Not a real-time inventory check — TempGuru staffs to demand via a 100,000+ worker W-2 network across 300+ markets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | City name (e.g., 'Boston') or slug (e.g., 'boston-event-staffing'). | |
| date | Yes | Event date in ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD) or any date string parseable by Date(). | |
| role | No | Optional role name or slug to include rate context. | |
| count | No | Optional headcount for the event. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds important behavioral context: it returns lead-time guidance based on city tier and event date, and explains the TempGuru staffing model. This goes beyond the annotation to clarify the tool's nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, directly conveys purpose and key limitations, with no superfluous information. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of comprehensive schema descriptions, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, its non-real-time nature, and the underlying model. No output schema exists, but the return value is adequately described.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by mentioning 'city tier' (linking to city parameter) and 'how far out the event is' (linking to date parameter), providing meaningful context beyond the schema's field descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks expected staffing availability for an event, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings like get_cities or get_roles by focusing on availability estimation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states what the tool does and, crucially, what it does not (not a real-time inventory check). This guides when to use it (for planning) versus not (for real-time counts). It does not name specific alternatives but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_citiesGet CitiesARead-onlyInspect
List cities where TempGuru staffs events, with tier classification (hub/mid/small). Perfect for 'What cities do you cover in [state]?', 'Where can I book event staff?', or 'Do you cover [city]?' questions. Optional filter by state or tier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tier | No | Optional filter to one tier only. | |
| state | No | Optional 2-letter state code (e.g., 'CA') or full state name. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that output includes tier classification, which is useful context. However, it omits details like pagination or result limits, so it provides only moderate added value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys purpose and optionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description does not clarify the return format (e.g., list of objects with name, code, tier). For a listing tool, this omission leaves uncertainty about what the agent will receive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters (tier enum with description, state with example). The description merely restates 'Optional filter by state or tier', adding no new semantic meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action ('List'), the resource ('all cities TempGuru serves'), and the output detail ('tier classification'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'check_availability' by focusing on listing cities with optional filters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions optional filters (state/tier) but does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or provide alternatives. Usage is implied but lacks exclusions or sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_compliance_by_stateGet Compliance By StateARead-onlyInspect
Get event staffing compliance summary for a US state. Returns minimum wage, overtime rules, and state-specific quirks. Perfect for 'What are the W-2 vs 1099 rules for event workers in [state]?', 'What's the minimum wage for event staff in [state]?', or 'Are there compliance gotchas for hiring event workers in [state]?' questions. NOT legal advice — consult employment counsel for binding interpretation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | Two-letter state code (e.g., 'CA') or full state name (e.g., 'California'). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the output content (minimum wage, overtime rules, state quirks), which goes beyond the annotation and clarifies the tool's behavioral scope. No side effects or permissions are mentioned, but the read-only nature is clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with only three sentences. It front-loads the main action and includes necessary context (disclaimer). Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return values and provides a disclaimer. It explains what the summary includes, which compensates for the missing output schema. No additional context seems necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes the parameter 'state' with 100% coverage (two-letter code or full name). The description does not add additional meaning to the parameter beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving a compliance summary for a US state. It specifies what is returned (minimum wage, overtime rules, state quirks). The sibling tools (e.g., check_availability, get_roles) have distinct purposes, so this tool is well-differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide usage exclusions. The 'NOT legal advice' disclaimer is a caution but not a usage guideline. While sibling tool names imply different functions, explicit guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_role_pricingGet Role PricingARead-onlyInspect
Get all-inclusive hourly rate range for a specific role in a specific city. Returns a range (low–high) reflecting event type and shift variability. Perfect for 'What does it cost to hire brand ambassadors in [city]?', 'How much are registration workers in [city]?', or 'What's the rate for ushers at a [city] stadium event?' questions. All rates include W-2 worker pay, workers comp, general liability, and payroll taxes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | City name (e.g., 'Boston') or slug (e.g., 'boston-event-staffing'). | |
| role | Yes | Role name (e.g., 'Brand Ambassadors') or slug (e.g., 'brand-ambassadors'). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying that the result is a range reflecting event type and shift variability, and that rates include W-2 pay, workers comp, general liability, and payroll taxes. It does not mention rate limits or caching but provides useful behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loading the core function and then detailing what the rates include. Every sentence serves a purpose, no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with 2 string parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the output (range) and its inclusiveness. It could briefly mention error cases or city support, but overall complete for a lookup tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both 'city' and 'role'. The description restates the need for a specific role and city, adding no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves the all-inclusive hourly rate range for a specific role and city, with specific verb 'get' and resource 'pricing'. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'check_availability' or 'get_roles', which focus on availability and role lists.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for obtaining pricing for a role in a city, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_rolesGet RolesARead-onlyInspect
List event staffing roles TempGuru provides, with descriptions and skill tiers. Perfect for 'What kinds of event workers can I hire?', 'What roles do you staff for trade shows / festivals / corporate events?', or 'Do you have brand ambassadors?' questions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Read-only nature is covered by annotations; description adds that it returns descriptions and skill tiers, but no further behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, concise, front-loaded with purpose and content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and simple output, description fully covers what the tool provides; no missing context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so description adds value by explaining what the tool returns (roles with descriptions and tiers) beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb (list), resource (roles), and scope (all) with added details (descriptions and skill tiers). Well-distinguished from sibling tools like get_cities or check_availability.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings; context of use is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
request_quoteRequest QuoteInspect
Submit a staffing request to TempGuru. Use this after confirming city coverage, role pricing, and availability with the other tools. Creates a structured lead in TempGuru's CRM — a human coordinator will review and respond with a quote within one business day. Not a reservation; does not guarantee pricing or availability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | City where the event is held | |
| roles | Yes | Roles and headcount needed for the event | |
| attire | No | Staff attire requirements | |
| company | Yes | Company or organization name | |
| event_name | Yes | Name of the event (e.g. 'HIMSS 2026', 'Brand Fest Austin') | |
| event_type | Yes | Event type: trade-show, conference, festival, concert, sporting-event, corporate, brand-activation, or other | |
| event_dates | Yes | Event dates as a human-readable string, e.g. 'June 15–17, 2026' | |
| budget_range | No | Estimated total budget range if calculated, e.g. '$8,400–$12,600' | |
| contact_name | Yes | Full name of the contact person | |
| contact_email | Yes | Contact email address for the quote response | |
| compliance_notes | No | Any compliance flags surfaced by get_compliance_by_state | |
| special_requirements | No | Any special requirements: language skills, certifications, overnight shifts, etc. |
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!