Take The Meeting

Take The Meeting Evaluate

take_the_meeting_evaluate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Evaluate whether a meeting is worth attending based on its parameters. Heavily weighted toward no. Returns time cost analysis, productivity impact, email viability score, and a polite decline template.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`duration`	No	Meeting duration in minutes
`recurring`	No	Whether this is a recurring meeting
`has_agenda`	No	Whether the meeting has an agenda
`attendee_count`	No	Number of attendees
`could_be_email`	No	Whether this meeting could be an email

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`answer`	No
`time_cost`	No
`suggested_response`	No
`productivity_coffins`	No
`email_viability_score`	No	Score indicating how suitable this would be as an email (0-100)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed9 schema fields changedJun 2, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / answer
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

removedOutput schema / properties / decline_template

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Polite decline template message",
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedOutput schema / properties / email_viability_score / type
```
Previous value: -"number"New value: +"string"
```
addedOutput schema / properties / productivity_coffins
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

removedOutput schema / properties / productivity_impact

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Assessment of productivity impact",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / recommendation

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Whether to attend or decline the meeting",
-  "enum": [
-    "attend",
-    "decline"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / suggested_response
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / time_cost
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

removedOutput schema / properties / time_cost_analysis

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Analysis of time cost for the meeting",
-  "properties": {
-    "cost_per_attendee": {
-      "description": "Time cost per attendee",
-      "type": "number"
-    },
-    "total_minutes": {
-      "description": "Total time cost in minutes",
-      "type": "number"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}

AddedMay 13, 2026
RemovedApr 23, 2026
First observedApr 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context: heavy bias toward no and output includes a decline template. No contradiction.

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?

Two efficient sentences with no filler. First sentence states purpose; second adds key behavioral and output details. Front-loaded and complete.

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 output schema exists and all parameters are optional, the description adequately covers purpose and output, though it could hint at defaults. Overall sufficient for agents with access to output schema.

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 covers all 5 parameters with 100% description coverage. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning but connects parameters to the overall evaluation logic. 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 tool evaluates meeting worth based on parameters, specifies bias toward no, and lists return values. It is distinct from sibling tools, none of which perform meeting evaluation.

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 purpose is clear, but the description does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives. However, given the unique function among siblings, 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 Take The Meeting tools Inspect

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

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct, well-documented roles, but the set includes two effectively identical routers (ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta, with the latter explicitly matching the former right now) and a dense cluster of six Polymarket tools that an agent must read carefully to choose among. This is more than a minor overlap, though the detailed descriptions prevent it from being complete chaos.

Naming Consistency3/5

Everything is snake_case, which is a plus, but the patterns are inconsistent: some tools are verb_noun (resolve_entity, validate_claim, list_subscriptions), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, bet_research, recent_alerts), some use brand prefixes (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), and take_the_meeting_evaluate is a sentence-like outlier. The prefixes do provide grouping, but the naming doesn't give a predictable action structure.

Tool Count2/5

32 top-level tools is above the 25+ threshold and will bloat an agent's tool-selection surface, especially because the server name 'Take The Meeting' suggests a narrow meeting tool while 31 of the tools are unrelated Pipeworx/data features. Even as a broad data-research server, several tools could be collapsed (the ask variants, the Polymarket family), so the count feels inflated.

Completeness2/5

For the purpose implied by the server name and the lone meeting tool, the surface is severely incomplete: there is no way to list or fetch meetings, access calendar/attendee context, or do anything beyond evaluating one set of supplied parameters. For the broad data-research domain that most tools actually serve, the read/research side is rich, but that is a completely different purpose from 'Take The Meeting', leaving the meeting feature as a disconnected dead end.

Take The Meeting Evaluate

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources