remove_participantOrganiser only: remove one participant by name (the oldest row with that name when it repeats), together with their vote. Requires the adminKey from create_event.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Exact participant name to remove. | |
| slug | Yes | Event slug from the URL, e.g. calm-otter-4821 (sync.day/calm-otter-4821) | |
| adminKey | Yes | Organiser key returned by create_event (the ?key= part of adminUrl). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the tie-breaking behavior ('the oldest row with that name when it repeats'), that the vote is removed with the participant, and that adminKey is required. This is meaningful behavioral context that the schema and annotations do not provide.
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 with no filler. It front-loads the key constraints (organizer-only, removes vote) and the tie-break rule, while keeping the whole definition compact.
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?
For a simple, three-parameter destructive tool, the description fully covers permission requirements, the exact deletion behavior, and the duplicate-name rule. No output schema is needed to understand the effect of this operation.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that removal is by exact name, how repeated names are handled, and where the adminKey comes from, which enriches the parameter semantics beyond the raw schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('participant'), and clarifies it also removes their vote. It also specifies organizer-only access, which distinguishes it clearly from the other event-management siblings.
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 clearly states who may use the tool (organizer only) and the required credential (adminKey from create_event). It does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives, but none of the listed siblings serve the same removal purpose, so the guidance is adequate.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: creation, parsing, reading, updating, deciding, submitting availability, voting, and participant removal. The closest pair, submit_availability and vote_time, are separated by their inputs (startOptions vs voteOptions) and lifecycle stage.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern, e.g. create_event, get_event, update_event, vote_time, decide_time. Minor compound names like parse_event_text and remove_participant still fit the same predictable convention.
Eight tools is well-scoped for an availability-polling server. Each tool covers a distinct part of the workflow without redundancy or excessive fragmentation.
The core lifecycle is covered: create, parse, read, update, submit availability, vote, decide, and remove participants. The only notable gap is no explicit delete/cancel event tool, but this does not break the main scheduling workflow.