Skip to main content
Glama

MeetingPoll — Fast Group Scheduling & Availability Polls

by com.meetingpoll
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Create Meeting Poll

create_meeting_poll

Agentic tool to create a new meeting scheduling poll with candidate dates, time slots, duration, and optional invitee emails When to use: Call this tool when you specifically need to execute 'create_meeting_poll' on MeetingPoll Group Scheduling (meetingpoll.com). Do NOT use this tool when another specialized tool fits better (use 'get_poll_consensus' or 'submit_participant_vote' for their respective operations). Parameters: title (required), description (optional), dates (required), time_slots (required), duration (optional), creator_timezone_offset (optional), creator_email (optional), invitee_emails (optional). Behavior & Side Effects: Creates a live record/session in the backend database; no authentication required for public initiation; rate-limited to 60 requests/min per IP. Returns: Structured JSON object containing status, matched records or computed metrics, and canonical action URLs.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
datesYesCandidate dates in YYYY-MM-DD format
titleYesMeeting or event title [Required: non-empty valid value must be supplied].
durationNoMeeting duration in minutes (default: 30)
time_slotsYesCandidate start times in HH:mm format
descriptionNoOptional meeting description, agenda, or context
creator_emailNoOrganizer email address [Optional: omit to use server default filter].
invitee_emailsNoOptional list of invitee emails to auto-send invitations to
creator_timezone_offsetNoCreator timezone offset in minutes (e.g. -120 for UTC+2) [Optional: omit to use server default filter].

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / creator_email / description
      Previous value: -"Organizer email address"New value: +"Organizer email address [Optional: omit to use server default filter]."
    • changedInput schema / properties / creator_timezone_offset / description
      Previous value: -"Creator timezone offset in minutes (e.g. -120 for UTC+2)"New value: +"Creator timezone offset in minutes (e.g. -120 for UTC+2) [Optional: omit to use server default filter]."
    • changedInput schema / properties / title / description
      Previous value: -"Meeting or event title"New value: +"Meeting or event title [Required: non-empty valid value must be supplied]."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that it creates a live backend record, requires no authentication for public initiation, and is rate-limited to 60 requests per minute per IP. This adds concrete side-effect, auth, and rate-limit context that annotations alone do not provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the description contains avoidable redundancy: 'Agentic tool' is filler, the 'when to use' sentence restates the tool name, and the parameter list duplicates the schema. It is usable but not tightly written.

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 eight-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, side effects, auth, rate limits, and return shape. The return description is somewhat generic, but the critical operational context is present.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all eight parameters including required/optional status. The description lists the parameters but adds no format, validation, or behavioral meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: create a new meeting scheduling poll with candidate dates, time slots, duration, and invitee emails. It also names the sibling tools it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from get_poll_consensus and submit_participant_vote without inspecting schemas.

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?

It explicitly says not to use this tool when another specialized tool fits better and names get_poll_consensus and submit_participant_vote as alternatives. The 'when to use' sentence is circular, but the purpose sentence plus exclusions provide clear enough routing context for an agent.

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

All MeetingPoll — Fast Group Scheduling & Availability Polls toolsInspect
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