Sonar Connections

See who answered the RSVP (hosts and co-hosts)

event_rsvp_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

THE HOSTS' OWN LIST of who answered the RSVP on a personal event this connector serves; call it for "who is coming", "who said maybe", "who has not answered". It returns the counts first (yes, maybe, no, not yet, and the headcount, which is each yes plus the guests it brings), then the first names under each answer, with "+N" beside a yes that brings guests, at most 40 names per answer and then a count of the rest. Only a host or a co-host can read it; anybody else gets a refusal you read out as given. A name is the name on the host's guest list or the first name a signed-in guest gave Sonar Connections, and there is no phone number, email or account id on this surface, so never offer to contact someone from this list; it only reads and 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_rsvp_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`eventIdOrName`	Yes	The event id or the event NAME as the hosts spell it.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`code`	No
`more`	No
`error`	No
`names`	No
`counts`	No
`notYet`	No
`eventId`	No
`message`	No
`servedBy`	No
`pageAnswers`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints, it discloses the authorization model (host/co-host only, others get a refusal to be read out verbatim), required credential (personal connector token), and output shape with truncation at 40 names per answer. It also warns that no phone/email/account id is present, which prevents an agent from promising follow-up contact.

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?

Purpose and access caveat are front-loaded, and every clause carries operative information (counts, name truncation, +N notation, PII limits). It is long for a one-parameter read and runs several points together with semicolons, but there is little filler.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description explains the ordering of results, headcount semantics (yes plus guests), and truncation behavior — exactly what an agent needs to report answers correctly. Authorization and privacy constraints round out a complete picture for a simple read tool.

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% on the single eventIdOrName parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the practical constraint that the name must match how hosts spell it and that resolution is by id or name, adding modest but real value over the schema.

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 and scope: "THE HOSTS' OWN LIST of who answered the RSVP on a personal event this connector serves." The framing as the host's roster (as opposed to the guest-facing RSVP action in event_meetup_rsvp) lets an agent distinguish it from the many event_* siblings 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Supplies concrete trigger phrasings ("who is coming", "who said maybe", "who has not answered") and an explicit access precondition (only a host or co-host). It does not name a sibling alternative or state when not to use it, so it falls just 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?