Sonar Connections

Publish a private personal event, free (hosts)

event_publish

Idempotent

Publishes a private personal event the signed-in person hosts (a quince, a birthday, a wedding, a baby shower, a graduation party), free, as the organizer dashboard's Publish does. eventIdOrName is the event id or its name as the host says it ("my quince"). It stays private: only guests with the guest code can open the page and add their pass. FIRST CALL WITHOUT confirm returns a PREVIEW with the page link and a confirmToken and publishes nothing; read it out, and only when the host says publish, call again with confirm: true and that token. Refusals (NOT_FOUND, NOT_OWNER, NOT_PERSONAL, ALREADY_PUBLISHED, PHONE_UNVERIFIED, NOT_SIGNED_IN, CONFIRM_INVALID) are read out as given. It requires a personal connector token.

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": {
      "eventIdOrName": "<eventIdOrName>"
    },
    "name": "event_publish"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`confirm`	No	Absent on the first call, which publishes nothing; true with confirmToken publishes.
`confirmToken`	No	The token the first call returned.
`eventIdOrName`	Yes	The event id or the event name as the host says it.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`code`	No
`link`	No
`error`	No
`state`	No
`eventId`	No
`message`	No
`preview`	No
`servedBy`	No
`published`	No
`confirmToken`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, but the description adds substantial context: privacy model (guest-code-only access), the fact that the first call has no side effects, the confirm token flow, and the named failure modes. This is exactly the extra behavioral detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, with the core scope in the first sentence and the confirm protocol immediately after. Slightly long and the refusal-code list borders on enumerating implementation detail, but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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?

Covers everything needed for a mutation with a meaningful confirmation gate: who may call it, the auth requirement, the two-step protocol, refusal handling, and the privacy guarantee. With an output schema present, return-value description is unnecessary and correctly omitted.

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% and the schema already documents all three parameters, but the description still adds meaning: `eventIdOrName` accepts a natural-language name as the host says it (e.g. "my quince"), and `confirm`/`confirmToken` are tied to the two-step preview flow. It stops short of full value-add only because the schema mirrors most of this.

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 (publishes), the exact resource (a private personal event the signed-in person hosts), the cost (free), and example event types, which separates it from sibling publishing tools like site_publish and event_create. An agent can identify the operation and its owner scope without opening the 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?

Explicitly prescribes the two-call protocol: first call without `confirm` returns a preview and publishes nothing, then a second call with `confirm: true` plus `confirmToken` performs the publish only when the host asks. It also enumerates the refusal codes and the auth prerequisite (personal connector token).

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

All Sonar Connections 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?