Soundcheck Live Event Quotes

Request sponsorship

request_sponsorship

Send a sponsorship inquiry, including the sponsor's name, email, and optional phone and website, to a Soundcheck organization, which creates an inbound sponsor lead it follows up on. Requires organization_id, name, and email. User confirmation: nothing is sent until the person confirms by email: the call only emails a confirmation link to the address given, and the request reaches the organization after that person opens the email and clicks Confirm.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	the prospective sponsor's name
`email`	Yes	the sponsor contact email
`phone`	No	the prospective sponsor's phone
`message`	No	additional sponsorship details or context
`website`	No	the sponsor's website or company URL
`organization_id`	Yes	the Soundcheck organization to approach (slug or id)
`estimated_budget`	No	approximate sponsorship budget, free-form
`sponsorship_interest`	No	what they want to sponsor / their interest

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	true on success (including confirmation_required prompts)
`data`	No	tool payload (API/composite/confirmation object); object, array, or primitive JSON
`error`	No	when ok is false

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 2, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / confirmation_token

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "user confirmation. Absent on the first call, which sends nothing and returns a summary plus this token; present only once the person whose details these are has seen that summary and agreed to share them with the organization.",
-  "type": "string"
-}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / confirmation_token

Added value: +{
+  "description": "user confirmation. Absent on the first call, which sends nothing and returns a summary plus this token; present only once the person whose details these are has seen that summary and agreed to share them with the organization.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedSep 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (not read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact: the call does not actually deliver the inquiry — it only emails a confirmation link, and the request reaches the organization only after that person opens the email and clicks Confirm. This double opt-in detail materially changes how an agent should describe the outcome to a user.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the confirmation semantics follow. The second sentence is long and somewhat repetitive (the colon clause and the following clause restate the same confirmation step), but every element carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies the required-parameter set and the critical confirmation workflow, leaving little an agent needs to know before calling; it only omits disambiguation from sibling write tools like request_booking.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines all 8 parameters, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds only a partial restatement (name, email, optional phone and website) and says nothing about message, estimated_budget, or sponsorship_interest, so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource — 'Send a sponsorship inquiry' — and names the target (a Soundcheck organization) and the effect (creates an inbound sponsor lead it follows up on). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling request_booking, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states prerequisites ('Requires organization_id, name, and email') which is useful context for invocation, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of request_booking as the alternative path. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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

All Soundcheck Live Event Quotes tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.