Skip to main content
Glama

Add or remove an event's co-host or door staff (hosts)

event_team_set
DestructiveIdempotent

Adds, changes or removes a Co-host or Door staff member on an event the signed-in person hosts, by their mobile number, as the organizer dashboard's Team panel does. role is cohost (every host power except money, deleting the event, removing the host and changing the team), door (scan, check in, walk-ins, open the door, counts; nothing else) or none to remove them. Nothing is sent to them: tell them yourself; they get the role the next time they sign in with that number. FIRST CALL WITHOUT confirm returns a PREVIEW with a requestId and changes nothing; read it out, and only when the host says yes, call again with confirm: true and that requestId. Refusals (NOT_FOUND, NOT_AUTHORIZED, NOT_HOST, NOT_ENABLED, BAD_PHONE, BAD_ROLE, NOT_SELF, NOT_THE_HOST, NOT_ON_TEAM, 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>",
      "phone": "<phone>",
      "role": "<role>"
    },
    "name": "event_team_set"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roleYescohost, door, or none to remove them.
phoneYesThe person's mobile number, as the host says it.
confirmNoAbsent on the first call, which changes nothing; true with requestId saves.
requestIdNoThe requestId the first call returned.
eventIdOrNameYesThe event id or the event name as the host says it.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okNo
codeNo
roleNo
errorNo
actionNo
maskedNo
appliedNo
eventIdNo
messageNo
previewNo
servedByNo
requestIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the destructive/idempotent annotations: it discloses that no notification is sent to the person, that the role only applies at their next sign-in, that the first call is a no-op preview returning a requestId, and it enumerates the refusal codes. The connector-token requirement is also surfaced.

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?

Front-loads the core action and its authorization scope before the protocol details, and nearly every sentence carries operational weight. It is a dense single paragraph, and the long parenthetical error list is slightly heavy, but nothing is redundant.

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 destructive, multi-step, host-authorized mutation with 5 parameters, the description covers authorization, the preview/confirm handshake, role semantics, side effects, and failure modes. With an output schema present, return values need not be explained.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra credit by spelling out the actual capability boundaries of each role value (cohost = every host power except money/deletion/team changes; door = scan, check-in, walk-ins, counts only) and by explaining the confirm/requestId pairing that the schema only hints at.

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 specific verbs (adds, changes, removes) against a specific resource (a Co-host or Door staff member on an event the signed-in person hosts) and anchors it to a known surface (the organizer dashboard's Team panel). This is clearly distinguishable from the read-only sibling event_team_list.

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?

Gives clear preconditions (the caller must host the event, needs a personal connector token) and explains the two-call confirm protocol so the agent knows the correct invocation sequence. It does not explicitly route to alternatives such as event_team_list for viewing the team or state when not to use this tool, which keeps it below a 5.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources