Skip to main content
Glama

Tempi

by com.meettempi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Join the private beta waitlist

join_waitlist

Requests access to host on Tempi (create event types, share a booking page). Not needed to book meetings, since booking pages are public. Returns the status: pending, approved (sign in to the Tempi web app), rejected, or open (no waitlist, sign in directly). Joining again with the same email returns the current status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refNoa short source tag of lowercase letters, digits, - or _, like "embed"
nameNothe person’s name (at most 100 characters)
noteNoanything the admins should know, e.g. what you want to use Tempi for
emailYesan email address

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"a string at most 100 character(s) long"New value: +"the person’s name (at most 100 characters)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / note / description
      Previous value: -"a string at most 1000 character(s) long"New value: +"anything the admins should know, e.g. what you want to use Tempi for"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / email / description
      Added value: +"an email address"
    • changedInput schema / properties / note / description
      Previous value: -"anything the admins should know, e.g. what you want to use Tempi for"New value: +"a string at most 1000 character(s) long"
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / ref
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "a short source tag of lowercase letters, digits, - or _, like \"embed\"",
+  "pattern": "^[a-z0-9_-]{1,32}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, so the write nature is covered; the description goes further by enumerating the four possible return statuses and what each implies for the user (approved → sign in, open → no waitlist) and by declaring idempotency on repeat email. With no output schema, this return-value detail is the valuable addition. It does not mention rate limits, admin approval timing, or whether submissions are ever purged.

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?

Four sentences, all load-bearing, with the core purpose front-loaded before the exclusion and the return-status list. Slightly dense due to nested parentheticals ('(create event types, share a booking page)', '(no waitlist, sign in directly)'), which cost a little readability.

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 a small 4-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, exclusion case, return statuses, and repeat-call semantics. What remains unaddressed is minimal: no auth/permission prerequisites are stated for the submitter, and approval timing is left to the admin flow.

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 description coverage is 100%, so ref, name, note, and email are all self-documented with patterns and length limits. The description adds only the implicit notion that email identifies the caller for idempotent re-joins, which is marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 — requesting host access on Tempi — and immediately scopes it with examples of what that enables (event types, booking page). It also draws a clear line against the booking-oriented siblings: 'Not needed to book meetings, since booking pages are public.' An agent can separate this from create_booking/get_available_slots without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when (you want to host), an explicit when-not (you only want to book a meeting, which is public and needs no waitlist), and follow-up behavior for repeat calls ('Joining again with the same email returns the current status'). The main confusion case — using this instead of just booking — is pre-empted.

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

All Tempi 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