Skip to main content
Glama

Wedyesday — wedding planning

by com.wedyesday.mcp

Create a Wedyesday workspace link

create_wedyesday_workspace_link

Turn a wedding plan into a private link the couple can open to save it as a free Wedyesday workspace — checklist, budget, guest list, RSVPs and a wedding website. Pass the same answers used for build_wedding_plan. This creates no account and stores no personal details; the couple signs up themselves when they open the link. Give them the link and tell them it expires in 14 days.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
budgetNoTotal budget in whole currency units (e.g. 45000). Omit if the couple does not have one yet — a regional typical figure is used instead.
regionNoRegion slug from list_wedding_markets, e.g. "melbourne". Drives the budget split and legal steps.
seasonNoRequired when dateMode is "season".
countryNoISO country code: AU, US, GB, NZ or IN. Defaults to AU.
dateModeNo"fixed" when the date is set, "season" when only a season and year are known, "undecided" otherwise.
locationNoWhere the wedding is, e.g. "Melbourne, VIC".
eventDateNoWedding date as YYYY-MM-DD. Required when dateMode is "fixed".
guestCountYesExpected number of guests, 2-2000.
partnerOneNoFirst partner's first name.
partnerTwoNoSecond partner's first name.
prioritiesNoUp to three things that matter most. Values: venue, photography, food, music, flowers, videography, attire, styling.
seasonYearNoYear for the chosen season.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the generic annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral details: no account is created, no personal details are stored, the couple signs up themselves, and the link expires in 14 days. This helps the agent set expectations and communicate the outcome to the user.

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 compact and each sentence earns its place: purpose, input relationship, privacy behavior, delivery guidance, and expiration. It front-loads the main purpose and avoids unnecessary filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the 12-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it clarifies the private-link output, what it contains, how it behaves regarding accounts and data, and the link's expiry. The only mild gap is no explicit statement of the exact response format beyond 'the link'.

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?

The input schema already documents all 12 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds the useful instruction to reuse the answers from build_wedding_plan, but it does not meaningfully deepen parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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's purpose: turning a wedding plan into a private Wedyesday workspace link. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by referencing build_wedding_plan and explaining that the same answers are reused to generate the link.

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?

The description gives clear workflow context: pass the same answers used for build_wedding_plan, give the link to the couple, and tell them about the 14-day expiry. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives beyond implicitly distinguishing from build_wedding_plan, so it stops just short of a 5.

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

All Wedyesday — wedding planning 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: planning, workspace link creation, cost guide, market listing, vendor search, dashboard, budget, guest list, and task lifecycle. There is no meaningful overlap or risk of selecting the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern, with account-scoped tools using a 'my' prefix (get_my_wedding_budget, list_my_wedding_tasks) and public tools using plain nouns (list_wedding_markets, search_wedding_vendors). Minor naming deviations like create_wedyesday_workspace_link and get_my_guest_list keep the pattern mostly predictable but not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count5/5

Eleven tools is a well-scoped size for a wedding planning server, covering plan generation, vendor discovery, cost guidance, and personal wedding data. Each tool has a clear purpose and none feel redundant.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the main wedding planning workflows: creating plans, generating workspace links, checking costs, searching vendors, viewing the dashboard/budget/guest list, and managing tasks. Minor gaps exist, such as no task update/delete and no guest management, but core user journeys are supported.

Resources