evite_export_guest_listEvite: The guest list as a file: name, email or phone, RSVP, party count and comment. Runs the same Export guest list download as Manage Event and returns a link to the file with the number of guests in it. It reads only and sends nothing. Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes | Event ID from list_events. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description reinforces this ('It reads only and sends nothing') and adds genuinely new context not in structured fields: the required Cotlet API key with app access, and that the return is a link plus a guest count. It doesn't cover link expiry or rate limits, so not a 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four short sentences, no padding, with the resource and output form front-loaded. The opening fragment 'The guest list as a file:' is slightly clipped but still efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description adequately covers the return (file link and guest count), the auth prerequisite, and the file contents. Minor gaps remain around link lifetime and how a user retrieves the file, but nothing essential to invoking correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the sole parameter event_id is already documented as 'Event ID from list_events', so the description has nothing left to clarify. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is correct.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb and resource ('Export guest list'), specifies the output form ('as a file') and enumerates the included fields (name, email/phone, RSVP, party count, comment). It distinguishes itself from the sibling evite_list_guests by emphasizing the file/link output, though it never names that sibling directly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It tells the agent this 'runs the same Export guest list download as Manage Event', which orients usage, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to evite_list_guests (structured list) or evite_add_guests. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.