Skip to main content
Glama

DC Member API

by io.github.dynamitecircle

event_meetup_rsvp

POST /events/:eventID/meetups/:meetupID/rsvp — RSVP to / leave a meetup

Join or leave a meetup. Requires a valid ticket for the event. The meetup's rsvpCount is updated atomically and idempotently.

When the meetup has a linked chat channel, this mirrors the DC app side effects too: joining subscribes you to the meetup chat and leaving removes you from it.

⚠️ WRITE operation: this mutates your DC account data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
joinedYes`true` to join, `false` to leave
eventIDYesEvent ID
meetupIDYesMeetup ID

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explicitly marks as WRITE operation, mutates DC account data, explains atomic/idempotent update of rsvpCount, and mentions chat subscription side effects.

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 concise and well-structured: starts with HTTP path, then purpose, then requirements, then side effects. No unnecessary information.

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 no output schema, the description covers the effect, side effects, atomicity, and idempotency. It lacks error conditions or what happens with invalid tickets, but is fairly complete for a simple RSVP operation.

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 descriptions. The description adds context about joining/leaving but does not provide new parameter details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('RSVP to / leave a meetup') and uses specific verbs ('Join or leave'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like event_rsvp (for events) and event_meetup_attendees (for listing attendees).

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 provides usage context: requires a valid ticket, atomic and idempotent update, and side effects on chat. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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

All DC Member API 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Despite the large number of tools, each has a detailed description that clearly distinguishes its purpose. Minor potential overlaps (e.g., search vs. resource-specific search, own vs. other's agenda) are well documented, so an agent can differentiate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun or resource_subresource_action pattern in snake_case. A few tools are just nouns (e.g., 'alerts', 'announcements'), but these are top-level listing endpoints; overall the naming is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

85 tools is very high for a single server, making it difficult for an agent to efficiently explore and select the right tool. While each tool seems justified for the broad domain, the count feels overwhelming and could be streamlined.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers most major areas (events, trips, chapters, rooms, search, profile, etc.) with CRUD or lifecycle operations. However, the lack of a 'send message' tool for rooms is a notable gap, and some resources (e.g., events) are read-only on creation/update, limiting agent workflows.

Resources