WebinarStack

Register Test Attendees

webinarstack.workflows.register_test_attendees

Register up to 20 test attendees with behavior profiles (registered, live, attended, no_show) for end-to-end webinar validation. The live and attended profiles stamp a join events row on the canonical session time so the no-show automation is genuinely testable. Returns { registeredCount, byProfile, attendees: [{ registrationId, profile }], steps }.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "webinarId": "<webinarId>",
      "attendees": "<attendees>"
    },
    "name": "webinarstack.workflows.register_test_attendees"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`attendees`	Yes	Profile+count groups. Total across all groups must not exceed 20.
`sessionId`	No	Optional session slot ID to register attendees for. Omit to use the next upcoming session.
`webinarId`	Yes	UUID of the existing webinar to register test attendees for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds real value by disclosing the 20-attendee cap and the side effect that live/attended profiles stamp a join events row. However, it says nothing about whether test registrations are flagged or excludable from real analytics, or how to clean them up afterwards — material gaps for a data-creating tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and limit, then the profile behavior, then the return shape. The inline return-shape summary is justified given there is no output schema, and no sentence is filler.

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?

For a three-parameter test-data mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the cap, profile semantics, the side effect that makes the test meaningful, and the return fields. Only the test-data lifecycle (flagging/cleanup) is unaddressed, which is minor relative to what is covered.

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, and the description adds meaning beyond it by explaining the behavioral consequence of the live and attended profiles (join event on the canonical session time) and the aggregate 20 cap across groups. Session/w webinar ID semantics are left entirely to 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?

States a specific verb and resource (register test attendees), the cap (up to 20), the profile dimension, and the purpose (end-to-end webinar validation). This lets an agent distinguish it from the single-registration sibling without opening either 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?

Usage context is clear: end-to-end webinar validation, with the profile menu explained so the agent knows which profile to pick to exercise no-show automation. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming the alternative sibling for one-off test registrations.

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

All WebinarStack tools Inspect

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

Need Help?