TempGuru Event Staffing

Save Staffing Plan

save_staffing_plan

Explicitly save a complete non-contact staffing plan for 30 days so it can be shared, resumed, or linked to a later quote request. Use only when plan_staffing returned plan_complete:true without a plan_id and the user needs persistence. Never call this tool when plan_staffing already returned a plan_id. Provide the same confirmed city, date, event type, attendees, roles, headcount, hours, and days; the server recomputes rates, totals, lead time, and compliance before saving and does not accept caller-supplied pricing or totals. This does not reserve staff, submit contact details, or request a quote. Branch on status: saved is the only outcome with a durable plan_id; plan_incomplete requires revising the inputs; for rate_limited or storage_unavailable, give the buyer continuation.form_url directly because request_quote requires a saved plan_id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`city`	Yes	Event city, name or slug (e.g. Chicago).
`roles`	Yes	Confirmed roles, headcount, hours, and days to recompute and save.
`attendees`	No	Expected attendee count.
`event_date`	No	Event date as YYYY-MM-DD; legacy recognizable dates are still accepted.
`event_type`	No	trade-show, conference, festival, concert, sporting-event, corporate, brand-activation, or other.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	Yes	Discriminator. Only status:saved means a resumable plan_id exists.
`message`	Yes
`plan_id`	No	12-character reference for the saved non-PII snapshot.
`created_at`	No
`expires_at`	No	Conservative 30-day expiry for the saved snapshot.
`plan_status`	No	Planner branch that prevented persistence.
`continuation`	No
`next_actions`	Yes
`resource_uri`	No	Public no-store REST URI that restores the saved artifact.
`schema_version`	No
`quote_readiness`	No	The buyer must open the handoff form and personally submit their contact details.
`retry_after_seconds`	No

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond minimal annotations, the description discloses that the server recomputes rates/totals/lead time/compliance, rejects caller-supplied pricing, and does not reserve staff or submit contact details. It also explains status branching (saved, plan_incomplete, rate_limited, storage_unavailable) and that only 'saved' yields a durable plan_id. This significantly exceeds annotation coverage.

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?

Every sentence earns its place and is front-loaded with the core purpose. Although long, the structure flows from purpose to usage conditions to expected inputs/behaviors to status hints, making it dense and valuable without redundancy.

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?

The description is complete for a complex save operation: it explains prerequisites, what the server does, what it does not do, and how to handle each possible outcome via hints. The output schema and sibling context are well supported, leaving minimal ambiguity.

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% with each parameter described, so baseline is 3. The description adds important contextual meaning: all inputs must match the previously confirmed plan_staffing result, and the server does not accept pricing or totals. This elevates the score above baseline but doesn't fully redefine parameters beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool saves a complete non-contact staffing plan for 30 days, with the explicit verb 'save' and resource 'staffing plan'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is used only when plan_staffing returned plan_complete:true without a plan_id, and contrasts with request_quote.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Use only when plan_staffing returned plan_complete:true without a plan_id' and 'Never call this tool when plan_staffing already returned a plan_id.' It also gives alternative handling for rate_limited or storage_unavailable via continuation.form_url.

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

All TempGuru Event Staffing 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

A4.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with explicit do-not-use cross-references. Pricing tools (get_rate_benchmark vs get_role_pricing) are carefully separated, and plan_staffing vs check_availability serve different granularity needs.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_cities, plan_staffing, request_quote). The verbs are simple and descriptive, with no mixed casing or stylistic inconsistencies.

Tool Count5/5

12 tools is well-scoped for an event staffing domain covering availability, pricing, roles, compliance, planning, persistence, and quote workflows. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The workflow is well-covered: plan_staffing creates plans, save/get manage persistence, request_quote hands off to a form, and get_quote_status tracks references. Minor gaps exist like lack of plan update/delete and quote status being a stub, but core operations are complete.

Save Staffing Plan

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources