Skip to main content
Glama

DC Member API

by io.github.dynamitecircle

virtual_event

GET /virtual-events/:sessionID — Get Live Call details

Returns the same payload shape as one entry from GET /virtual-events for a single online Live Call — sessionID, name, description, kind (which audience tier the session is open to), scheduledAt / scheduledEndAt (ISO 8601), duration in minutes, attendeeCount, chatRoomID, isLive, meetUrl (the video-call join link, returned regardless of your RSVP state), myRsvp (your current yes/no/maybe or null), and status.

DC BLACK callers also see DC BLACK-only sessions; DC tier callers get tier_restricted (403) on those.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sessionIDYesThe Live Call session ID. Find IDs via `GET /virtual-events`.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It discloses the response payload in detail, notes that meetUrl is always returned, and mentions tier restrictions resulting in 403 for DC callers. It implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state destructions or 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is fairly long but each sentence adds value. It front-loads the HTTP method and path, then details the return fields. Some minor redundancy (e.g., 'Get Live Call details' in first line) but overall efficient for the information conveyed.

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?

The description thoroughly lists all return fields with explanations, covers tier restrictions, and notes that the meetUrl is returned regardless of RSVP state. No output schema is provided, so the description fully compensates.

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?

Input schema has one parameter with description (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating how to find the sessionID: 'Find IDs via GET /virtual-events'. This provides context beyond the schema.

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 it's a GET endpoint returning details of a single Live Call. It specifies the HTTP method, path, and the full payload shape, distinguishing it from siblings like 'virtual_events' (list) and 'virtual_event_rsvp' (RSVP).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies use for fetching a single event's details, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives. It mentions that IDs can be found via 'GET /virtual-events' but lacks explicit when-not or alternative guidance.

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