Skip to main content
Glama

Wedding30s

by com.wedding30s.mcp

create_wedding_draft

Create an unpaid draft of a wedding invitation website on wedding30s.com and return the URLs the couple needs.

Use it when the human wants a wedding website and has given both names, the date, the place and an email. Call list_templates first if they have not chosen a look, and get_pricing if the cost has not been agreed.

Behaviour: every call creates a NEW draft — there is no update or delete tool, so confirm the details with the human before calling. The couple is emailed a dashboard link. The preview URL is free and works immediately, but the page stays unlisted until it is paid for. Publishing requires a human to open the checkout URL and pay EUR 49: an assistant cannot publish the site and cannot spend money. Unpaid drafts are deleted 7 days after creation.

Returns: preview_url, checkout_url and expires_at.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateYesWedding date in ISO format YYYY-MM-DD
emailYesCouple email. Receives the confirmation and the private dashboard link, so it must belong to the couple and not to the assistant
storyNoHow the couple met, in their own words. Rendered as the "our story" section; the section is left out when omitted
venueNoName of the ceremony or reception venue, shown under the location. Omit if not decided
languageNoLanguage of the published page and of its RSVP form. Defaults to es
locationYesCity or town where the wedding takes place
maps_urlNoGoogle Maps link to the venue. Adds a map and a directions button to the page
templateNoVisual template id. Call list_templates for the options; omit to use the default
partner1_nameYesFull name of the first partner, as it should appear on the page
partner2_nameYesFull name of the second partner, as it should appear on the page

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Given no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: creates a new draft each call, no update/delete, confirms details before calling, emailing dashboard link, preview free but unlisted until paid, human must pay EUR 49 to publish, assistant cannot spend money, unpaid drafts deleted after 7 days. All critical side effects and limitations are covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear paragraphs for purpose, usage, behavior, and returns. Every sentence carries meaningful information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the complexity and front-loaded with the most critical details.

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 complex tool with 10 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides a comprehensive picture: what it does, when to use, side effects, payment requirements, deletion policy, and return fields. It fully covers what an agent needs to invoke correctly and interpret results.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for every parameter. The description adds marginal value beyond schema, mostly referencing required fields (names, date, place, email) but not enriching individual parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high coverage.

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 description clearly states the tool creates an unpaid draft of a wedding invitation website and returns needed URLs. It distinguishes from siblings (get_draft_status, get_pricing, list_templates) by its creation purpose and specific resource.

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 states when to use (when human wants a website with required details) and when to call alternative tools first (list_templates if no look chosen, get_pricing if cost not agreed). Provides clear context and exclusions.

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

All Wedding30s toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct, non-overlapping purpose: creation, status retrieval, pricing, and template listing. No ambiguity in which tool to call for a given task.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_wedding_draft, get_draft_status, get_pricing, list_templates. Clear and uniform.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is well-scoped for the service's purpose—covering pre-purchase info, creation, and status checks without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.

Completeness4/5

Core workflow is covered: templates, pricing, creation, and status. No update/delete exists, but this is explicitly by design, so the surface is complete for its intended use.

Resources