Skip to main content
Glama

sync-day

by io.github.syncday-app

Submit availability

submit_availability
Idempotent

Save (or replace) one person's availability: the candidate start keys they can make, from get_event.startOptions. The person is identified by identity, not by name: the same identity later overwrites the same row (and can rename it), a different identity with the same name is a second participant. Keys outside the event's start options are rejected. Returns the updated ranking.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesDisplay name, 1-20 chars, may repeat. e.g. 小明
slugYesEvent slug from the URL, e.g. calm-otter-4821 (sync.day/calm-otter-4821)
startsYesStart keys like 2026-09-05T14:00. Empty array clears this person's picks.
identityYesRandom secret for this person that you generate and keep per person, 16-256 chars (e.g. 32 hex chars; NOT a plain user id or name, since anyone who guesses it can act as them). Same identity = same participant; the server stores only a hash. Example: 3f9a1c77b2e04d5e8a61f0c9d2b7e415

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining that the same identity overwrites its row and can rename it, that a different identity with the same name becomes a second participant, and that invalid keys are rejected. It also discloses the return value, which is especially valuable because no output schema is present.

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?

Three tightly written sentences cover the core action, the identity semantics, validation, and the return value. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important distinction (identity vs. name) is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It explains the overwrite behavior, participant identity model, validation constraints, and what the response contains.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by clarifying that identity is the true key and name is not unique, that starts come from get_event.startOptions, and that invalid keys are rejected. This enhances the schema's identity and starts documentation without repeating it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Save (or replace) one person's availability,' and ties the data to get_event.startOptions. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by framing it as availability submission rather than voting, event creation, or participant removal.

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 provides clear context: use this after fetching start options from get_event, and pass an identity token rather than a name. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended workflow is unambiguous for this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All sync-day 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is well-scoped for an availability-polling server. Each tool covers a distinct part of the workflow without redundancy or excessive fragmentation.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources