mcp-server

create_meeting

Book a meeting in the connected LoopGantt ACCOUNT (requires a LoopGantt API key); the key owner is the organizer. Every invitee gets a calendar invitation (.ics, works with Apple, Google, Outlook and any other calendar); members with Google or Outlook sync get it straight in that calendar. Link it to a project (and a task) so the team sees it there. videoProvider picks the call: google_meet, teams or zoom only when the account has that connection, custom = the link you put in location, none = no call.

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "startsAt": "<startsAt>",
      "endsAt": "<endsAt>",
      "tz": "<tz>"
    },
    "name": "create_meeting"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tz`	Yes	IANA time zone of the organizer, e.g. America/Lima
`notes`	No
`title`	Yes
`endsAt`	Yes	ISO 8601 instant after startsAt
`taskId`	No	Task of that project the meeting is about
`location`	No	Room, address, or the call link for custom
`startsAt`	Yes	ISO 8601 instant, e.g. 2026-11-04T15:00:00Z
`memberIds`	No	User ids of project members to invite
`projectId`	No	Project id from list_projects
`guestEmails`	No	Outside guests by email (needs a paid plan)
`videoProvider`	No	Omit for the organizer's default

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the auth model, that every invitee receives an .ics invitation across calendar platforms, that Google/Outlook sync members get it directly, and that video providers only work when the account has that connection. It omits failure modes, validation of attendee availability, and whether the organizer's own calendar is affected.

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?

Front-loaded with the account/auth constraint and packed with useful detail, with essentially no filler sentences. The semicolon-chained phrasing and parentheticals make it dense and slightly harder to scan than a bulleted structure would be.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers auth, invite delivery, project/task linkage, guest plan requirements, and video provider constraints. It still leaves the agent guessing about the returned meeting object and duplicate/conflict handling.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 82%, so the schema already documents most fields and the baseline applies. The description does add real meaning for videoProvider (custom = the link in location, none = no call, the named providers require an existing connection) and for the project/task linking intent, but says nothing about tz, memberIds vs guestEmails, or required time fields.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Book a meeting in the connected LoopGantt ACCOUNT"), immediately scoping the operation to the connected account. An agent can distinguish this from list_meetings or schedule_project without reading any 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?

Gives clear prerequisites (requires a LoopGantt API key, key owner is the organizer, outside guests need a paid plan) and per-value guidance for videoProvider. It stops short of naming alternatives or saying when not to use it (e.g., to inspect existing meetings, use list_meetings).

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

All mcp-server 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?