promote_guest_to_staffPromote a guest (who has a SocialLoop account) to staff on a live event — role doorPerson, guestList, manager, promoter, host, or custom. Grants real permissions. Requires event_id + guest_id + user_id + role; you must be a host.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | Yes | ||
| user_id | Yes | ||
| event_id | Yes | ||
| guest_id | Yes | ||
| permissions | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate it's not read-only or destructive; the description adds that it 'grants real permissions' and requires host authorization, providing behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not mention rate limits or reversibility.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences and conveys key information efficiently. However, the first sentence is slightly long. Still, it is front-loaded and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers main constraints and preconditions but lacks output behavior (no output schema) and does not explain the permissions parameter. With siblings like update_staff_role, it is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and there are 5 parameters with a nested object. The description only lists required fields and the enum for role, omitting the optional 'permissions' parameter entirely. This undercompensates for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (promote), the target (guest to staff), the required roles (doorPerson, guestList, etc.), and preconditions (guest must have SocialLoop account, user must be a host). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like demote_staff_to_guest.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies required parameters and the host prerequisite, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or recommend alternatives like update_staff_role. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.