Sonar Connections

Redeem an event code

event_redeem_code

Idempotent

Seats the person at an event with an event code from a badge, a poster, an email or a door. Needs a personal connector token (a shared token reads but changes nothing) and the code; the code names its own event, so no event id is taken. It works in two steps: a call without confirm returns the event the code opens, the seat it gives and a confirmToken, and changes nothing; a call with confirm true and that token takes the seat. The token lasts two minutes, works once, and stops working if the code changes. Redeeming works from anywhere, not only at the venue.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	Yes	The code exactly as the person said or read it. Case, spaces and dashes are normalized, so "tie-24" and "TIE24" are the same code.
`confirm`	No	Absent on the first call, which changes nothing. true, together with confirmToken, makes the change.
`requestId`	No	An id for this redemption chosen by the caller, at least 8 characters. A repeat with the same id and the same code returns the first result without redeeming a second time.
`confirmToken`	No	The token the first call returned. Needed when confirm is true.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`seat`	No
`error`	No
`changed`	No
`message`	No
`preview`	No
`replayed`	No
`servedBy`	No
`suggestions`	No
`confirmToken`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 11, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "required": [
+        "ok",
+        "changed"
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "properties": {
+        "ok": {
+          "const": false
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "ok"
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "properties": {
+        "found": {
+          "const": false
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "found"
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "required": [
+        "error"
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "required": [
+        "replayed"
+      ]
+    }
+  ],
+  "properties": {
+    "changed": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "confirmToken": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "preview": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "replayed": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "seat": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "servedBy": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "suggestions": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 11, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / confirm / description

Previous value: -"Leave this out on the first call. Pass true with confirmToken to commit."New value: +"Absent on the first call, which changes nothing. true, together with confirmToken, makes the change."

changedInput schema / properties / confirmToken / description

Previous value: -"The token the preview returned. Required when confirm is true."New value: +"The token the first call returned. Needed when confirm is true."

changedInput schema / properties / requestId / description

Previous value: -"Your own id for this redemption, at least 8 characters. Sending the same one twice with the same code returns the first result instead of redeeming a second time."New value: +"An id for this redemption chosen by the caller, at least 8 characters. A repeat with the same id and the same code returns the first result without redeeming a second time."

AddedSep 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the things an agent could get wrong: the two-step preview/commit protocol, that the preview changes nothing, and that the confirmToken expires in two minutes, works once, and is invalidated if the code changes. Those details (token lifetime, single use, invalidation on code change) are not derivable from idempotentHint/destructiveHint and materially affect retry behaviour.

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?

The purpose and preconditions are front-loaded and almost every sentence carries information. There is minor redundancy — 'changes nothing' appears twice (once for the shared token, once for the first call) — which could be tightened, but nothing is padded.

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 two-phase mutation tool the description covers auth, sequencing, token lifetime, retry/idempotency implications and scope of use, and an output schema exists so return shape needn't be spelled out. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly on the first attempt.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is already 100%, yet the description still adds meaning: it establishes that no event id parameter exists because the code resolves the event, and it explains the runtime relationship between confirm and confirmToken (the token is the one returned by the first call). That is genuine protocol semantics, not a restatement of field docs.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and outcome ('Seats the person at an event with an event code') and immediately scopes the input ('the code names its own event, so no event id is taken'). This clearly separates it from siblings like event_pass_reissue or event_pass_revoke, which act on passes rather than seating via a code.

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 explains the exact call sequence (first call without confirm, second with confirm true and the confirmToken) and the auth precondition (personal connector token; a shared token reads but changes nothing), plus the clarification that redeeming works remotely. What it lacks is an explicit 'use this instead of X' comparison against neighbouring tools, so it stops short of the top band.

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?