I'm In! Sign-up Sheets

Create a live sign-up sheet

create_signup_sheet

Destructive

Create a live sign-up sheet on im-in.events from a title, slot names and a time zone. Returns the shareable sheet URL and emails a private manage and claim link to owner_email, the user's own address. One sheet per owner email a day.

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "owner_email": "<owner_email>",
      "slots": "<slots>",
      "tz": "<tz>"
    },
    "name": "create_signup_sheet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tz`	Yes	IANA time zone of the event, e.g. "America/New_York"
`slots`	Yes	One line per item people sign up for, 1 spot each. Add " x4" for 4 spots, or " (no limit)" so anyone can sign up, e.g. ["Week 1 snacks", "Setup crew x4", "Coming (no limit)"]
`title`	Yes	Sheet title, e.g. "Soccer Snack Schedule"
`starts_at`	No	Optional ISO datetime of the event
`description`	No	Optional sheet description
`owner_email`	Yes	The user's email; the manage link is sent here

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 12, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / slots / description

Previous value: -"Slot names, e.g. [\"Week 1 snacks\", \"Week 2 snacks\"]"New value: +"One line per item people sign up for, 1 spot each. Add \" x4\" for 4 spots, or \" (no limit)\" so anyone can sign up, e.g. [\"Week 1 snacks\", \"Setup crew x4\", \"Coming (no limit)\"]"

First observedOct 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With annotations covering readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive, the description still adds real behavioral context: the tool emails a private manage and claim link to owner_email, returns a shareable URL, and enforces one sheet per owner email per day. It does not explain what the destructiveHint implies (e.g. whether sheets can be revoked), which is the one remaining gap.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action before the side effects and the rate limit. Slight redundancy in restating owner_email's role, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a six-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description helpfully declares what comes back (shareable URL) and the out-of-band email side effect, plus the daily quota. It is nearly complete, lacking only the consequences of the destructive annotation.

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 adds a meaningful constraint the schema does not: owner_email is 'the user's own address', framing the manage link as going to yourself rather than an arbitrary recipient, and it names the core composing inputs (title, slots, tz).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a live sign-up sheet') plus the source inputs and the target platform, so the action is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the siblings draft_sheet_link or list_templates, leaving the routing decision to the agent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools that would be natural alternatives (e.g. draft_sheet_link for a preview). The only constraint given, the daily per-owner limit, is a rate rule rather than usage direction.

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

All I'm In! Sign-up Sheets 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?