Lemonvite

List guests

lemonvite_list_guests

Read-only

Use this when the user wants to see who is on a Lemonvite invitation and how each guest responded: RSVP status, party size (adults and kids), note, answers to the host's custom RSVP questions (dietary restrictions, meal choice), contact details, whether they opened the invitation, and their personal invite link. Returns every active guest in one response, without paging and in no particular order; removed guests are not included. invite_url stays null until the invitation is published. Pass rsvp_status to narrow the list (pending answers "who has not responded"); omit it for everyone. Get event_id from lemonvite_list_invitations. Each guest's invitation_id is what lemonvite_update_guests and lemonvite_remove_guests take. For counts only, use lemonvite_get_rsvp_summary instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`event_id`	Yes	Lemonvite event_id returned by lemonvite_create_invitation or lemonvite_list_invitations. Identifies the event to act on; not a guest invitation_id or RSVP URL.
`rsvp_status`	No	Filter guests by RSVP: pending = awaiting reply, attending = going, declined = not going, maybe = tentative. Omit to list all guests.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`guests`	Yes
`guest_count`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 10, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / event_id / description

Added value: +"Lemonvite event_id returned by lemonvite_create_invitation or lemonvite_list_invitations. Identifies the event to act on; not a guest invitation_id or RSVP URL."

addedInput schema / properties / rsvp_status / description

Added value: +"Filter guests by RSVP: pending = awaiting reply, attending = going, declined = not going, maybe = tentative. Omit to list all guests."

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 10, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / guests / items / properties / answers

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The guest's answers to the host's custom RSVP questions (see custom_fields on the invitation), in question order.",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "field_id": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "label": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "value": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "field_id",
+      "label",
+      "value"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / guests / items / properties / note

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The free-text note the guest left with their RSVP, if any.",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / guests / items / required

Previous value: -[
-  "invitation_id",
-  "name",
-  "email",
-  "phone",
-  "rsvp_status",
-  "party",
-  "invite_url",
-  "has_viewed"
-]New value: +[
+  "invitation_id",
+  "name",
+  "email",
+  "phone",
+  "rsvp_status",
+  "party",
+  "note",
+  "answers",
+  "invite_url",
+  "has_viewed"
+]

First observedSep 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, it discloses non-obvious behavior: no paging, unordered results, removed guests excluded, invite_url null until publish, and the filter semantics. These are genuine behavioral facts an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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?

Purpose and trigger are front-loaded, and nearly every clause carries unique information. It is a single dense paragraph rather than structured lines, which slightly hurts scannability, but there is no filler content.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema, it covers everything an agent needs: source of identifiers, filtering, pagination/ordering behavior, nullability, and cross-links to the related sibling tools. Nothing material 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. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, notably that 'pending' answers 'who has not responded' and that omitting rsvp_status returns everyone, plus tracing event_id back to lemonvite_list_invitations and invitation_id to the update/remove siblings.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('see who is on a Lemonvite invitation and how each guest responded') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling lemonvite_get_rsvp_summary ('For counts only, use... instead').

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?

It opens with an explicit when-to-use trigger, states the alternative for the counts case (lemonvite_get_rsvp_summary), and explains the rsvp_status filter's effect versus omitting it. It also tells the agent where to source event_id (lemonvite_list_invitations).

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

All Lemonvite 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?