CWI Discovery Engine

RSVP to Event

rsvp

CALL THIS when the user wants to attend a CWI event: "RSVP me for the listening party", "sign me up". Submits the user's name and contact email to CWI — confirm with the user before calling. Returns confirmation with event details. Rate limit: 3 per requester per 24h. Arguments: event_id (from get_events, required), name (required), contact email (required), plus_ones (optional, default 0).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Your name (required).
`contact`	Yes	Email for confirmation (required).
`event_id`	Yes	Event ID from get_events (required).
`plus_ones`	No	Number of additional guests (default 0).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes
`name`	No
`status`	Yes
`rsvp_at`	No
`rsvp_id`	Yes
`_session`	No	Chain session: pass _session.session_token back in the next call to continue the chain.
`event_id`	No
`try_next`	No	Suggested follow-up calls, each a pre-compiled {tool, arguments, purpose} payload.
`plus_ones`	No
`event_title`	No
`confirmation`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 15, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "rsvp response: RSVP confirmation with ID. Rate limit: 3 per contact per 24h.",
+  "properties": {
+    "_session": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "description": "Chain session: pass _session.session_token back in the next call to continue the chain.",
+      "properties": {
+        "session_token": {
+          "description": "Hex session token; echo it as params._session.session_token to continue.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "step": {
+          "description": "Hop number in this chain (1 = chain start).",
+          "type": "integer"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "session_token",
+        "step"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "confirmation": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "event_id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "event_title": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "plus_ones": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "rsvp_at": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "rsvp_id": {
+      "type": [
+        "integer",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "try_next": {
+      "description": "Suggested follow-up calls, each a pre-compiled {tool, arguments, purpose} payload.",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "description": "Pre-compiled next call: copy `arguments` straight into the next tools/call.",
+        "properties": {
+          "arguments": {
+            "additionalProperties": true,
+            "description": "Ready-to-use arguments, pre-populated from the current response.",
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "purpose": {
+            "description": "Why this call is the natural next step.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "tool": {
+            "description": "Tool to call next.",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "tool",
+          "arguments"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok",
+    "rsvp_id",
+    "status"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedOct 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which only declare it is a non-read, non-idempotent, non-destructive write), the description discloses that it transmits the user's name and contact email to CWI, requires user confirmation first, returns event-detail confirmation, and enforces a rate limit of 3 per requester per 24h. These are material behavioral facts the annotations do not convey.

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?

The critical trigger is front-loaded and the remaining facts (submission target, confirmation gate, return, rate limit, arguments) are packed into one dense paragraph with no filler. It is slightly run-on and would read better as short clauses, but nothing is wasted.

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 mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the missing pieces an agent needs: user-confirmation requirement, what data leaves the client, rate limiting, and the source of event_id. Return-value detail is unnecessary given the output schema, so nothing material is absent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including plus_ones default. The description restates the same argument list without adding format, syntax, or validation nuance, so it earns only the baseline.

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 opens with a specific action ('CALL THIS when the user wants to attend a CWI event') and gives concrete trigger utterances ('RSVP me for the listening party', 'sign me up'). The verb+resource combination (RSVP to an event) is clearly distinct from every sibling, which are all read/lookup or submission-to-different-pipeline tools.

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?

It states exactly when to call (user wants to attend an event), a precondition for the key argument (event_id comes from get_events), and an operational gate ('confirm with the user before calling'). No alternative tool competes for this intent, and the trigger phrases remove ambiguity.

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

All CWI Discovery Engine tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.