Skip to main content
Glama

DC Member API

by io.github.dynamitecircle

virtual_event_rsvp

POST /virtual-events/:sessionID/rsvp — RSVP to Live Call

RSVP to a Live Call. The user is added to the matching attendance list on the session doc (participantIDs for yes, maybeIDs for maybe, notIDs for no) and removed from the others.

Three statuses:

  • yes — you intend to attend; you'll show up in attendeeCount.

  • maybe — soft attendance signal.

  • no — you're declining. Use this to back out after a prior yes or maybe.

Note: the meetUrl (join link) on GET /virtual-events/:sessionID is not gated on your RSVP — it's returned whenever the host has set one, regardless of attendance state. RSVPing is purely an attendance signal.

Idempotent — re-RSVPing with the same status is a no-op.

⚠️ WRITE operation: this mutates your DC account data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYesYour RSVP status for this session.
sessionIDYesThe Live Call session ID. Find IDs via `GET /virtual-events`.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with no annotations, the description discloses that it is a write operation (mutates DC account data), is idempotent, explains the effect on session document arrays, and clarifies that meetUrl is not gated on RSVP. This provides full behavioral context.

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?

Well-organized with endpoint, purpose, list of statuses with descriptions, a note about meetUrl, and idempotency warning. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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?

Covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and idempotency thoroughly. However, it lacks description of the return value (no output schema), which is a minor gap for a write operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 100% coverage, but the description adds significant meaning: explains sessionID source, status enum effects (yes/participantIDs, maybe/maybeIDs, no/notIDs), and idempotent behavior. This adds value beyond 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 RSVPs to a Live Call, explains the effect (adds to attendance lists), and lists three statuses. It differentiates from siblings like event_rsvp and event_meetup_rsvp by specifying virtual events.

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 explains when to use each status and clarifies that meetUrl is not gated on RSVP. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like event_rsvp or virtual_event_attendees, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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